>> My answers not Manatees but:
I can relate to much of that. I haven't cancelled my direct debit yet, let's get elected first, then we'll see.
On the face of it, Starmer and Reeves are fencing themselves in. If they won't raise taxes, can't do any better with growth, and won't borrow and spend, then it's hard to see how public services can be restored. I suspect that they are hanging their success on borrowing to invest.
I think there are fair ways of raising more, including some I haven't thought of. CGT is an obvious one. Exemplified by Sunak's and Starmer's tax returns. Sunak with an assessable income of over £5m paid 23% tax, Starmer with £0.35m paid 33% (from memory, so the figures might not be exactly right, but you get the drift).
The principal reason for this is income tax at 40%/45% above £50,000, and CGT at 20%. A large proportion of Sunak's £5m was capital gains, taxed mostly at 20%. Starmer's £350k was mostly earned. Dividends are taxed at up to 32%/38%. The properly rich tend to have mostly investment income, not wages. There's no NI with investments either.
Wealth taxes are tricky for all sorts of reasons but just equalising income tax and income/gains.
from wealth would raise c. £15bn per year (I don't know if that allows for behaviour change).
I understand why Starmer feels the need to make pledges e.g. on not rejoining EU or even SM/CU - he doesn't want to have the Brexit war again and neither do I - practically everything else has gone to hell and needs urgent attention. But the Tories are wise to this now and laying traps - I think there's an element of that in the supposed new net-zero policy. (The 'policy' so clearly inspired by the Uxbridge by-election win and which cannot possibly have been properly worked out in the period since).
Corbyn of course wasn't unelectable per se, although he is now. The main reason being the character assassination carried out by the despicable elements of fourth estate, much owned by non-doms who themselves pay little tax, although it has to be said that his handling of anti-semitism and the division his election created within Labour would have got him anyway. But I think Labour needs its left wing, not as a dominant force but to keep it on track, and I hope it finds its place again.
There's a big difference between Blair and Starmer. Blair could state and make his case in a way that Starmer, in fact most people, can't. Charisma can be dangerous, but the ability to articulate a vision is essential and Blair was pretty good at that. It's hard to disagree that Starmer has some way to go on that dimension.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 22 Sep 23 at 17:21
|
