Westminster Politics 2024-2029

[FireballXL5]

It's funny how right-wingers make labrynthine excuses for not taxing the rich, but have no problem with the have-nots getting fecked over again and again.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

It's funny how right-wingers make labrynthine excuses for not taxing the rich, but have no problem with the have-nots getting fecked over again and again.

Are these right wingers in the room with us?

 

[altodevil]

Look guys it's some tough decisions ok, we have to get behind them. NHS reform sounds scary but look it's just some tough decisions. It would be too easy to tax the ultra rich, the COVID profiteers, we need to take tough decisions. It's ok guys we have adults in charge now

 

[AfonsoAlves]

All of their assets are in the country, take their fecking assets if they won't pay their fair share. Super simple.

Seriously? Asset stripping as the solution?

Rather than actually create a proper transparent and functional system to be able to levy taxes off large valuation increases of assets, you want to just arbitarily seize assets off people who "haven't paid their fair share?"

What the heck does that even mean?

The problem is not in people "not paying their fair share", it's that modern tax institutions and fiscal policy is not up to date on the complexities of modern structured income.

The solution is to create a proper system in place that handles all the processes the super-rich use to get money - otherwise the mistrust in the system will lead to far higher consequences than whatever assets you've managed to seize.

 

[Maticmaker]

There's clearly a blurred grey area where "does this constitute as part of normal daily life" or "this is a lifestyle choice you personally chose."

Indeed there is, this whole issue of 'lifestyle choice' affects every aspect of our modern life not just health. When is something a 'true lifestyle choice' and when is it something like, 'there is no other choice'?
Starmer is going to come up against this dilemma time and time again in the next few years in deciding what is 'no other choice' and what is a true lifestyle choice, when making budget/spending decisions.... arguments ahead no doubt and as he has said, "some hard choices".

 

[Kinsella]

National debt forecast to treble over next 50 years​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewlwkg82ggo

Who’s going to write the official obituary?

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Indeed there is, this whole issue of 'lifestyle choice' affects every aspect of our modern life not just health. When is something a 'true lifestyle choice' and when is it something like, 'there is no other choice'?
Starmer is going to come up against this dilemma time and time again in the next few years in deciding what is 'no other choice' and what is a true lifestyle choice, when making budget/spending decisions.... arguments ahead no doubt and as he has said, "some hard choices".

There are some pretty cut and clear cases though:

Cheap junk food that are high in sugar and salt is not one of them.

Choosing to chug 40 cigs a day is.

 

[Sweet Square]

Always worth reposting

In January 2022 and April 2023, Streeting accepted donations of £15,000 from hedge fund boss John Armitage for ‘staffing costs’ in his office. Armitage’s interests include a stake, reportedly worth in excess of $500 million, in US private health insurance giant UnitedHealth, America’s largest health insurer.

But this is far from Streeting’s only link to private healthcare interests. Campaign group EveryDoctor also raised questions over donations from Peter Hearn, a majority shareholder in a recruitment agency which works with private healthcare companies, and his affiliated company MPM Connect Ltd. One of these donations topped £80,000, the group said, while another ran close to £50,000.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/06/labours-love-affair-with-private-healthcare

 

[Raven]

Seriously? Asset stripping as the solution?

Rather than actually create a proper transparent and functional system to be able to levy taxes off large valuation increases of assets, you want to just arbitarily seize assets off people who "haven't paid their fair share?"

What the heck does that even mean?

The problem is not in people "not paying their fair share", it's that modern tax institutions and fiscal policy is not up to date on the complexities of modern structured income.

The solution is to create a proper system in place that handles all the processes the super-rich use to get money - otherwise the mistrust in the system will lead to far higher consequences than whatever assets you've managed to seize.

You're hilariously deluded if you think the system we live in isn't purposely designed to be like it is by those at the top. It's no coincidence that it benefits them alone.

Of course I believe in asset stripping the ultra wealthy if they're not willing to pay their fair share. By fair share, I mean tax, as could be set out in your "transparent and functional system". It's really actually not as difficult to comprehend as you're making out but does actually require tough decisions to be made unlike just reheating austerity which is a weak and boring decision.

 

[Smores]

National debt forecast to treble over next 50 years​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewlwkg82ggo

Who’s going to write the official obituary?

You know the budgets going to be shite when they're sending out the big scary number briefings to scare the public. There's absolutely zero logical reasoning for such briefings.

This would put us in line with Japan's current debt ratio which surprise suprise has an elderly population. An economies debt to GDP increases as the population ages, now does it matter that we might hit 250%+ GDP? Not worth discussing in the article apparently.

 

[Red in STL]

This is not easy though, at least not something that doesn't require a huge amount of legwork.

The main problem isn't that billionaires are evading their tax on income, it's that their net worth increases are taxed based on equity and asset value increases (which, at the moment, are not taxed until materialized). The other problem is that their cash flow is mostly done through collaterized asset based loans.

Taxing this is incredibly difficult, without having huge impact on the whole financial system. Do you add "loans tax?", or "Unrealized capital gains tax?". The latter could really screw with al sorts of markets as people are forced to liquidate positions to accommodate sudden spikes in valuations.

This isn't an easy quick fix solution like you're suggesting. It needs to be done, but the mechanics of it is very complex which is why the political will hasn't been there(Not here, and not anywhere else).

And of course if you try and tax them to much they'll just piss off to Monaco or some such place

 

[AfonsoAlves]

You're hilariously deluded if you think the system we live in isn't purposely designed to be like it is by those at the top. It's no coincidence that it benefits them alone.

Of course I believe in asset stripping the ultra wealthy if they're not willing to pay their fair share. By fair share, I mean tax, as could be set out in your "transparent and functional system". It's really actually not as difficult to comprehend as you're making out but does actually require tough decisions to be made unlike just reheating austerity which is a weak and boring decision.

How is it simple?

How does taxing unrealized capital gains work in reality in your scenario? Some guy buys £10 million worth of shares. In 1 year, for whatever reason, it 2xs and he has a tax burden of say, £4 million. He has to then liquidate some of his original position to pay that tax back, everyone has to do the same and all of a sudden there's a dip in the capital markets because everyone is liquidating to pay tax. All of a sudden the price is back down to £10 million.

"Simple" unrealized capital gains simply does not work. There has been modelling on this, the US IRS even looked into this and realized that this is only feasible if rather than the asset itself being taxed, it's all loans and derivatives that use the asset as collateral to be taxed. That way, it becomes a "high value loans tax". This then runs into problems of differentiating between the purpose of the underlying securitization. Are you going to tax someone who using their home as collateral for getting a mortgage/loan to buy another home? etc etc. There are people who are far bigger experts than you and I who have looked at this problem and found it to be extremely challenging.

You mouthing off saying that it's "not that difficult" doesn't change that reality. I've yet to see an actual solution proposed other than, "Yeah well just tax the super wealthy's assets" without it causing problems in all other corners of the financial system as well as hitting the middle class.

In your "not that difficult model", how would this tax unrealized capital gains tax work?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

 

[Buster15]

Said by someone who's enjoyed unfettered access to free healthcare for his entire, long life.

It surprises me that you have completely missed the point I was making. Free access to healthcare has nothing to do with it.

I am talking about the simple basics.
Eating healthily.
Keeping active and taking a even a basic amount of exercise.
Where does free healthcare come into that....it doesn't.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

And of course if you try and tax them to much they'll just piss off to Monaco or some such place

Billionaires fecking off to Monaco isn't the problem. The problem is if there is FDI confidence problems that result in an unsecure system.

If Jim Ratcliffe fecks off to Monaco that's not a problem for me. The problem is if Jim Ratcliffe then decides to move all his operations, businesses, plants etc elsewhere - then that becomes a problem.

If they decouple themselves from UK markets they do not have any necessity to actually purchase or use any UK assets, hence the deployment of capital moves away.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

National debt forecast to treble over next 50 years​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewlwkg82ggo

Who’s going to write the official obituary?

Very miserable. Here's a link to the full report

It has to be said, though, that it's a model with many many assumptions used as inputs, minor changes in which radically alter the model's outcomes. It's therefore inherently unreliable. Reading through it, for instance, you get snippets such as this:

"boosting the productive potential of the economy, if it does not simply result in higher public spending, could make the biggest difference of all, with every 0.1 per cent increase in productivity growth reducing the rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio by 25 percentage points. A full 1 percentage point increase, equivalent to a return to prefinancial crisis rates of productivity growth, could keep debt below 100 per cent of GDP throughout the next 50 years."

and

"Net interest spending quadruples from 2.8 to 11.3 per cent of GDP as the stock of debt rises. This is exacerbated by the gilt rate now being 0.2 percentage points above the assumed long-run rate of nominal GDP growth throughout our projection, unlike in FRS 2022 when it was an average of 1.1 percentage points below nominal GDP growth over the first fifteen years."

The problem is, of course, that these inputs aren't necessarily worst case, and could just as easily be optimistic as pessimistic.

 

[DOTA]

Are these right wingers in the room with us?

Sadly, yes.

 

[Buster15]

Am I right in assuming that you're in favour of the proposals for increased sugar tax, new salt taxes and relabelling of UPF or similar products?

Not necessarily. Because these in their own right don't result in person taking a basic amount of exercise or keeping their muscles strong enough to allow them to lead a meaningful lifestyle.
Remember. GPs are now encouraged to prescribe exercise instead of tablets, including for mental health benefits.

 

[TwoSheds]

It surprises me that you have completely missed the point I was making. Free access to healthcare has nothing to do with it.

I am talking about the simple basics.
Eating healthily.
Keeping active and taking a even a basic amount of exercise.
Where does free healthcare come into that....it doesn't.

Having free time, money, secure housing with proper cooking facilities, and being well educated do come into it though. I wouldn't mind at all if they said something like "our main focus is on reducing the burden on the NHS by spending the money in schools, sports facilities, and social housing", but they don't. At best they link it to social care (which is absolutely fair of course), but they're not really proposing to spend an awful lot of money on that either so...

"Here is a list of problems.

Here are the solutions invented by the last government but we're actually going to do a bit more of them and marginally less corruptly".

It's a pretty pathetic message so far and if they keep it up for 5 years they're fecked I reckon. Hung parliament at best.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Sadly, yes.

What are you considering as a right winger here?

Like, I feel like we're labelling anyone who isnt immediately, "Eat the rich" as right wingers.

We are all in agreement that the rich needs to be taxed.

What we're in disagreement is the how's and the timeframe. People think it's going to be super easy and adminstratively easy to conjure this policy, when others have stated that it's an incredibly technical complex operational challenge.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

What are you considering as a right winger here?

Like, I feel like we're labelling anyone who isnt immediately, "Eat the rich" as right wingers.

We are all in agreement that the rich needs to be taxed.

What we're in disagreement is the how's and the timeframe. People think it's going to be super easy and adminstratively easy to conjure this policy, when others have stated that it's an incredibly technical complex operational challenge.

The answer exists, and its operating in the heart of ultracapitalism. The US.

Its called a wealth tax. Because very rich people like nice things, and they will pay to keep them. In a country where sunseeker yachts sold £100 million worth of product in a single week, there is no shortage of money, there is a problem of distibution.

Replace counil tax with the US style property tax. 1% property value per year.

Right now, a £50K flat in Gorton pays about £1300 a year in council tax. A £60 million property in knightsbridge pays £2,100.

Under a 1% property tax, the former goes down to £500, the latter becomes £600K.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

The answer exists, and its operating in the heart of ultracapitalism. The US.

Its called a wealth tax. Because very rich people like nice things, and they will pay to keep them. In a country where sunseeker yachts sold £100 million worth of product in a single week, there is no shortage of money, there is a problem of distibution.

Replace counil tax with the US style property tax. 1% property value per year.

Right now, a £50K flat in Gorton pays about £1300 a year in council tax. A £60 million property in knightsbridge pays £2,100.

Under a 1% property tax, the former goes down to £500, the latter becomes £600K.

That doesn't even begin to touch on the ultra-rich. The assets the super rich hold isn't property.

Let's look at Elon Musk - richest man in the world TM.

Most of his wealth is in Tesla/SpaceX/[insert business here] equity. How does this get taxed if he doesn't sell? It's a difficult problem to solve.

Imagine a scenario like Stripe, where the company was started by two middle class guys in their bedroom.

The company is now worth 100 billion. Lets say tax here is set at 25%, they therefore need to pay 25 billion. How? Stripe isn't a public company, they'd literally have to sell their entire business or go public just to meet tax regulations.

This is what I mean when I say its complicated, the tax code on this will take years to work out a middle ground which works in taxing people, and doesn't harm the economy, FDI, or startup culture.

 

[Jericholyte2]

See, this is what I don't understand.

There's clearly a blurred grey area where "does this constitute as part of normal daily life" or "this is a lifestyle choice you personally chose."

Overconsumption of Salt and Sugar is a problem, and whatever legislation comes is going to be controversial, regardless of your personal feelings as its in that grey area.

But Alcohol abuse and chain smoking are two things that are just so obviously a problem, theres been decades of warnings etc.

Not necessarily. Because these in their own right don't result in person taking a basic amount of exercise or keeping their muscles strong enough to allow them to lead a meaningful lifestyle.
Remember. GPs are now encouraged to prescribe exercise instead of tablets, including for mental health benefits.

These show the different sides of the debate though with health / weight / exercise.

Your gut biome is the single most important part of your body when it comes to health, and with the proliferation of UPF we have 50 - 80% of our diet which actually isn't food, and this only increases with poverty, as these people can't afford the more natural / less artificially enhanced products.

I'm essenially going to parrot Chris van Tuleken's "Ultra-Processed People" but the point is that 'personal responsibility' ends when it's a 1-on-1 battle between you as a consumer, and the MNC foodstuff creator with the multi-million/billion RnD departments finding ways to make cheaper versions of products. The individual consumer then have to have a biochemistry degree in order to understand the ingredients of products.

Take a bag of crisps - ingredients include: Dextrose, Flavour Enhancers: Monosodium Glutamate, Disodium 5'-ribonucleotide, Smoke Flavourings, Maltodextrin

Take a tub of icecream - ingredients include: Reconstituted Skimmed Concentrate, Partially Reconstituted Whey Powder, Emulsifier: Mono- And Diglycerides Of Fatty Acids; Stabilisers: Guar Gum, Locust Bean Gum

Chocolate that contains Lecithins, fizzy drinks that have Aspartame, Acesulfame K, sweets that contain Humectant, bread which has Calcium Propionate, Emulsifiers: E472e & E481.

Many of these items are actively detrimental to the bacteria living inside us, that we rely on to maintain a healthy digestive system. So we can run and exercise until we're blue in the face, but until we put the genie back in the bottle on UPF then we're only heading in one direction; a fatter, more addicted, less healthy population.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

That doesn't even begin to touch on the ultra-rich. The assets the super rich hold isn't property.

Let's look at Elon Musk - richest man in the world TM.

Most of his wealth is in Tesla/SpaceX/[insert business here] equity. How does this get taxed if he doesn't sell? It's a difficult problem to solve.

It raises money in this country and is a much fairer system. It is also one that cannot be avoided or evaded, and tax lawyers cannot get around. That is the purpose of tax, redistribution, and this achieves it, whether it specifically targets some section of the richest people in the country or not.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

It raises money in this country and is a much fairer system. It is also one that cannot be avoided or evaded, and tax lawyers cannot get around. That is the purpose of tax, redistribution, and this achieves it, whether it specifically targets some section of the richest people in the country or not.

I mean I don't disagree with what you say btw, I think property taxes well implemeneted (I recently looked up how it worked in US after comments in the US thread), is better than a regressive tax than council tax.

I just don't think it even begins to make a dent in the problem itself.

 

[Red in STL]

Billionaires fecking off to Monaco isn't the problem. The problem is if there is FDI confidence problems that result in an unsecure system.

If Jim Ratcliffe fecks off to Monaco that's not a problem for me. The problem is if Jim Ratcliffe then decides to move all his operations, businesses, plants etc elsewhere - then that becomes a problem.

If they decouple themselves from UK markets they do not have any necessity to actually purchase or use any UK assets, hence the deployment of capital moves away.

If the tax becomes too much then that's what will happen, didn't Dyson basically do that?

What is a fair share BTW? Not aimed at you, just a general question

According to this article, albeit 4 years old but I'm guessing it probably hasn't changed, the top1% of income tax payers in the UK account for 30% of all income tax, now I wouldn't be in the top 25% never mind 1% but that figure suggests that individuals aren't the real problem

 

[Buster15]

Having free time, money, secure housing with proper cooking facilities, and being well educated do come into it though. I wouldn't mind at all if they said something like "our main focus is on reducing the burden on the NHS by spending the money in schools, sports facilities, and social housing", but they don't. At best they link it to social care (which is absolutely fair of course), but they're not really proposing to spend an awful lot of money on that either so...

"Here is a list of problems.

Here are the solutions invented by the last government but we're actually going to do a bit more of them and marginally less corruptly".

It's a pretty pathetic message so far and if they keep it up for 5 years they're fecked I reckon. Hung parliament at best.

Don't disagree with any of that.
However, I honestly fail to see why anyone needs anything additional to walk instead of taking the car for example.
Or cooking even a pretty simple meal using available vegetables and fruit. Instead of relying on ready meals or things like just eat.

Anyway. That is just my way of thinking. But the inescapable fact is that an ageing AND unhealthy population will continue to outstrip the capacity of the NHS.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Don't disagree with any of that.
However, I honestly fail to see why anyone needs anything additional to walk instead of taking the car for example.
Or cooking even a pretty simple meal using available vegetables and fruit. Instead of relying on ready meals or things like just eat.

Anyway. That is just my way of thinking. But the inescapable fact is that an ageing AND unhealthy population will continue to outstrip the capacity of the NHS.

The problem lies in time and energy.

I order an obscene amount of food form ubereats, because I get home late and the last thing we want to be doing is spending half an hour cooking, half an hour eating, then 15 minutes cleaning.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Don't disagree with any of that.
However, I honestly fail to see why anyone needs anything additional to walk instead of taking the car for example.
Or cooking even a pretty simple meal using available vegetables and fruit. Instead of relying on ready meals or things like just eat.

Anyway. That is just my way of thinking. But the inescapable fact is that an ageing AND unhealthy population will continue to outstrip the capacity of the NHS.

It will get worse, because people without money don't stay healthy. The last mountain bike I bought cost more than the first new car I ever bought, £7 grand. I've ridden it thousands of miles, so for me I've got my money's worth, but the healthy option for everything is priced beyond half the country. Even basic bikes are getting into the hundreds these days.

To stick with something I know, biking, government cuts are also now threatening the bike parts set up specifically for people to do it safely. Coed-y-Brenin in Wales brings tens of thousands of visitors a year. I first went there in 1998 I think, and now they are shutting it to cut costs. Its bike only trails, perfect for people just wanting to ride for the cost of a parking ticket for the carpark, and it will soon be gone.

Governments want people to be healthier, but cut back on programmes that help people be healthy. They offer no education on the poor quality of cheap value meals, and wonder why people are eating shite? They eat shite because its all they can afford, and the supermarkets love to sell it to them.

 

[Red in STL]

The problem lies in time and energy.

I order an obscene amount of food form ubereats, because I get home late and the last thing we want to be doing is spending half an hour cooking, half an hour eating, then 15 minutes cleaning.

Sounds like you might have a work/life balance problem, you're working late/long hours and then spend what you're earning on food that probably costs 10x what it would if you bought and cooked it

 

[Buster15]

The problem lies in time and energy.

I order an obscene amount of food form ubereats, because I get home late and the last thing we want to be doing is spending half an hour cooking, half an hour eating, then 15 minutes cleaning.

That is a very fair point and one I can sympathise with.
But what about the weekend.
And as long as you eat a healthy breakfast which fills you up, you are much less likely to snack on unhealthy foods.

Far be it for me to lecture you. But you can get some really nice rice varieties that take just 2 minutes in the microwave. And while that is cooking, some frozen vegetables can be cooked.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[TwoSheds]

That is a very fair point and one I can sympathise with.
But what about the weekend.
And as long as you eat a healthy breakfast which fills you up, you are much less likely to snack on unhealthy foods.

Far be it for me to lecture you. But you can get some really nice rice varieties that take just 2 minutes in the microwave. And while that is cooking, some frozen vegetables can be cooked.

Some of these "lazy" poor people work 3 jobs. Other people don't have a kitchen big enough to cook properly in, sometimes they can't afford to use the shitty inefficient/broken oven/hob the landlord provided because of the cost of the gas bill, sometimes they just don't know how to plan or budget properly, other times they are too tired to walk because they're already unfit and unhealthy...

There are a lot of very good reasons why people are the way they are. It's not to say we couldn't all do better than we do, but more often than not what people need is help, whether thats from regulation, support, incentives, or whatever, not judgement.

 

[Red in STL]

It will get worse, because people without money don't stay healthy. The last mountain bike I bought cost more than the first new car I ever bought, £7 grand. I've ridden it thousands of miles, so for me I've got my money's worth, but the healthy option for everything is priced beyond half the country. Even basic bikes are getting into the hundreds these days.

To stick with something I know, biking, government cuts are also now threatening the bike parts set up specifically for people to do it safely. Coed-y-Brenin in Wales brings tens of thousands of visitors a year. I first went there in 1998 I think, and now they are shutting it to cut costs. Its bike only trails, perfect for people just wanting to ride for the cost of a parking ticket for the carpark, and it will soon be gone.

Governments want people to be healthier, but cut back on programmes that help people be healthy. They offer no education on the poor quality of cheap value meals, and wonder why people are eating shite? They eat shite because its all they can afford, and the supermarkets love to sell it to them.

That's a bit of a cop out, there is plenty of information out there if you look, I remember Jaimie Oliver, OK a bit of a cnut, he tried to improve school meals by cutting out a lot of the shite that kids eat, what happened, parents rebelled against it because their kids had to have chips and fizzy drinks with everything

Supermarkets love cheap ready meals because people buy them, they make more money per unit out of the "good" stuff but people won't buy it

One thing the government should do is make the old domestic science/home economics classes in schools compulsory and fund it properly, every school kid should get 2-3 years worth of classes, in the long run that will have great benefits

 

[Nogbadthebad]

One thing the government should do is make the old domestic science/home economics classes in schools compulsory and fund it properly, every school kid should get 2-3 years worth of classes, in the long run that will have great benefits

One of the big issues now in cooking is not the knowledge, its the cost. Foodbanks are actively asking people for stuff that can be microwaved like tins of spaghetti and beans, or not cooked at all, because firing up an oven becomes too costly, especially for people on card meters.

 

[Maticmaker]

There are some pretty cut and clear cases though:

Cheap junk food that are high in sugar and salt is not one of them.

Choosing to chug 40 cigs a day is.

There could be a consensus found on many things, but even with the two choices you have given, there are other views; a child being given or allowed over indulgence in junk food by a parent or adult, this can be considered a 'no other choice', for the adult, if that adult does not have enough income to feed their children more healthily.

Admittedly, smoking' 40 cigs a day is a more difficult 'lifestyle' indulgence to deny , but I know smokers who maintain if they didn't smoke, their nerves would be shot to pieces and they would balloon up in weight and become obese? They rationalise it (at least to themselves)in these terms.

Certainly over the years definitions of 'lifestyle choices' and 'no other choice' definitions have become blurred, if you go back 40/50 years ago (at my age this is possible!) a 'one parent family' was only recognised in social terms, and in many areas of being in receipt of public benefits, if the 'one parent' was either a 'widow or widower'. And any form of single-parenthood outside of these parameters was non-recognisable and 'lifestyle choice had not been invented (or even thought of in those terms).

This has all changed of course, as divorce became easier, second third and so on marriages, became more prevalent, people cohabiting or living together (once called living over the brush) mostly those involving children, became more prevalent 'lifestyle choices' and accepted as such.

Over this time the biggest single factor that produce a lot of public outcry, at times bordering on anger, was when increasingly the family 'bread-winner' (not always males, but predominantly so) started to disappear 'off the radar,' leaving the state to bear the full brunt of looking after the children (and partner) left behind.
Of course such situations are mitigated when domestic violence/abuse is involved, then it was no longer a 'lifestyle choice', but 'a no other choice' for those on the receiving end, which was usually (but not exclusively) females.

In Maggie Thatcher's time the government did try to introduce legislation to track down the absconding/defaulting persons (again usually males) and extract from them contributions to support their abandoned families, but it never really worked out, tracking down people became difficult, costs associated didn't meet the expectations and in many cases by the time the absconders were tracked down, they had started in true 'lifestyle choice' again in other relationships, also involving children... so it became a 'chasing your tail' exercise.

However when times are hard and needs must, as it appears now, then I suspect Starmer and Reeves will once again have to open 'the can of worms' that is, deciding between 'lifestyle choice'/'no other choice', and think where they can make the cuts across the board.

There are lots of these areas, e.g. 'child benefit caps'/ winter fuel payments, etc. might just be the beginning... steady as she goes Sir Keir!

 

[Jericholyte2]

How is it simple?

How does taxing unrealized capital gains work in reality in your scenario? Some guy buys £10 million worth of shares. In 1 year, for whatever reason, it 2xs and he has a tax burden of say, £4 million. He has to then liquidate some of his original position to pay that tax back, everyone has to do the same and all of a sudden there's a dip in the capital markets because everyone is liquidating to pay tax. All of a sudden the price is back down to £10 million.

"Simple" unrealized capital gains simply does not work. There has been modelling on this, the US IRS even looked into this and realized that this is only feasible if rather than the asset itself being taxed, it's all loans and derivatives that use the asset as collateral to be taxed. That way, it becomes a "high value loans tax". This then runs into problems of differentiating between the purpose of the underlying securitization. Are you going to tax someone who using their home as collateral for getting a mortgage/loan to buy another home? etc etc. There are people who are far bigger experts than you and I who have looked at this problem and found it to be extremely challenging.

You mouthing off saying that it's "not that difficult" doesn't change that reality. I've yet to see an actual solution proposed other than, "Yeah well just tax the super wealthy's assets" without it causing problems in all other corners of the financial system as well as hitting the middle class.

In your "not that difficult model", how would this tax unrealized capital gains tax work?

Setting myself up for a fall here, but there's the other side to that point though, in that people are able to use unrealised capital to buy things, like Musk and Twitter. Musk was originally looking to buy Twitter using Tesla shares and then also went to banks looking for loans using his Tesla shares as collateral.

So if unrealised capital can be used at collateral for purchases then there has to be some mechanism to tax them.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Setting myself up for a fall here, but there's the other side to that point though, in that people are able to use unrealised capital to buy things, like Musk and Twitter. Musk was originally looking to buy Twitter using Tesla shares and then also went to banks looking for loans using his Tesla shares as collateral.

So if unrealised capital can be used at collateral for purchases then there has to be some mechanism to tax them.

Yes, hence if you read my second paragraph about "high value loans tax", that's where the solution lies. The details have yet to be figured out.

 

[TwoSheds]

Setting myself up for a fall here, but there's the other side to that point though, in that people are able to use unrealised capital to buy things, like Musk and Twitter. Musk was originally looking to buy Twitter using Tesla shares and then also went to banks looking for loans using his Tesla shares as collateral.

So if unrealised capital can be used at collateral for purchases then there has to be some mechanism to tax them.

There is, you tax loans taken out against unrealised capital unless they are secured against your one main residence or one of a maximum of two cars. Something along those lines. And for companies as opposed to private individuals you tax any loan secured against unrealised capital on a sliding scale that increases with the company's revenue. The idea that it's cheaper for Apple to borrow money secured against the vast sums in their accounts in the Bahamas or wherever than to actually access that cash directly is just fecking stupid.

The reason it won't happen is because it is too difficult for a very average, beaten down government beholden to the same people who benefit from unrealised capital, to outsmart them or to go against them. It's not because it can't be done.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Someone's been on the sauce again. Anyone know any good defamation lawyers?