Who should Labour tax? 

But other people are not.

I barely pay any tax

@@DewiSant-o3y When I retire I'm planning on paying as little in tax as possible. I don't mind paying tax, I just don't like governments, especially Labour governments, squandering my money.

Tax the king

⁠@@kw8757Am already retired and that’s exactly how I feel. If the tax I pay was put to good use I’d have no issue paying but when you look at the nonsensical ideas politicians have it’s clear the majority of our money gets wasted.

Exactly 🤬

Everyone wants the tax not to fall on them. I'm on £40k so tax Everyone £45k and above

That's why taxing the mega rich is the way to go.the wealth of the uk billionaires has increased by 300% during the period of tory misrule rule.they are the people most able to shoulder the extra tax and that Loss of wealth will have zero effect on their life style and will allow the country to make the investments so badly needed for rebuilding our frastucture which will benifit everyone in our country.

@JohnPark-xf2gq let's tax the king and lords, and stop taxing working people. Also cut all benefits. People should work

@@davidcooks2379 obviously people that can't work won't have to. How about paying an amount that incentives people to work.

Rachel Reeves is not, and never has been, a Labour politician. Neither indeed, is Keir Starmer. They are nothing other than closet Tories, and the current version of Labour is pure blue Tory as we are now discovering.

Davos doesn't allow support for workers, only billionaires.

But she won't, Do you think she will accomodate her pay master ? She will do what she thinks is right. Too stupid too see whats in front of her

The Dalek? ​@@HaydenCyclist

She's on the record as saying that Labour isn't a party for the unemployed.

I did not know this. It’s bizarre.

How much is commercial imports is via air compared to shipping? Does anyone know the figures?

This is a global issue - there doesn't seem to be any viable route for UK (for example) to apply a fuel duty tax on its own. Short of a full global agreement, maybe it is not inconceivable for a pan-EU air fuel duty tax - allowing UK to come to some agreement on that single issue. But how that would work for flights not within the EU+UK, I really have no idea.

Fuel duty pays for roads. Airplanes (and boats) don't use roads.

@curtisnixon no it doesn't, your council tax pays for the roads. Fuel duty has nothing to do with it. That's the same old tired argument that grumpy old men use against cyclists, thinking that somehow they get to "hog" and use our roads "without paying for them!" Fuel duty goes into a general taxation bucket. Your council will pay for repairs to the roads. But big trucks and heavy vehicles cause the most deterioration to these roads... So Amazon trucks, the trucks that deliver our food... These are all the main culprits here.

You do understand that clowns are only acting?

There is little there that would solve the chronic problems with the British economy.

They don't need to be. They're mission is to fix the economy, not fix everything.

@@OneAndOnlyMe their “mission” is to keep the system as is. See how well it works for you.

​@@OneAndOnlyMe Their mission should be to implement the changes set out in their manifesto, which is rather more than just fix the economy.

That’s not really true. I get 40% relief on my income but when I draw it out, I will be either using my 25% tax free allowance (so there’s a quarter gone straight away) and drawing the rest at either zero (up to my allowance) or at 20%. Further more, there are plenty of ways to avoid double income taxation, so changing the point at which it’s taxed need not mean double taxation.

@@jamesreynolds4811 what isn't true? If you don't understand it is not a relief then I can't help you.

@@jamesreynolds4811if you’re getting 40% tax relief, you’re likely to end up paying 40% on your pension withdrawals as you’ll most likely have saved enough to move you into that income band when you take the income.

@@bjorn2625 no we won’t because we won’t be taking our income at a high rate. We will be paying 20% base tax. And that’s in a single income household for a couple (my wife earns, I raised the kids and support her) which increases our tax exposure compared to dual income households. No matter how you look at it, pension tax relief benefits the already well off the most. And that’s before you think about the 25% tax free allowance (possibly under review) which if managed properly will mean my wife (we) will probably pay under 5 or 10% on total retired income. Even if we were to reach the higher rate threshold, the worst that would happen is that our gains would be clipped. We’d still only be paying zero or 20% tax on most of our income and not the 40% plus we’d be paying without pension tax relief. All we have to do is keep my wife’s annual pension income below £50k to avoid 40% tax on it. Not including her 25% tax allowance. Even if she does go over £50k income, she’d only be paying 40% on the amount over £50k. And then there’s the employer contribution, reduce NI contributions etc. The system heavily stacked towards the relatively already well off.

@@jchanning72 read my previous comment again. If I avoid paying 40% in my income by putting it in my pension (ignoring other employer contribution NI benefits) and then I my pension income is taken below the 40% threshold, I will pay less tax in my pension income. I will not pay tax at all on the first £12k, then I will only pay 20% on the income between £12k and £50k. If I took that as income (ignoring NI for simplicity, to demonstrate the hypothesis) now, I’d pay £20k of it as tax. If I take it as my pension, I’d pay about £7k. That’s a whopping third of the tax liability. It is not deferment, it is avoidance.

Funny how the solution is always more taxes, and never less government spending.

Exactly.

Taxes on top bracket earners are nowhere near the highest in 70 years. There's a beatles song about it.

@SocietalDefibrilation You need to understand the difference between tax rates and taxes. Taxes as a percentage of the economy are at the highest in over 70 years AND we are running a massive deficit. We are getting massive amounts of tax, what we have is a spending problem not a tax problem. Taxes are too high, higher than when the Beatles were complaining in song.

@@mikefish8226 Yes, but taxes are unfairly leveraged. That's the whole point, the tax burden as an overall percantage of the economy is high but it's not fairly distributed and directed in the right way. The government's plan makes no sense - expecting the private sector, which only interest is to maximise their own profits, to invest in public utilities (including labour) and infrastructure and then somehow this magical growth will result in higher tax revenues for the state which they will then use to finally invest in the public. It's all backwards. If we tax these corporations less, they won't just invest more, they'll pay more dividends to their shareholders. This has been clear for so long, it's absolute madness that a so-called Labour government believes in this ludicrous and demonstrably failed ideology. There's zero difference between this and the last government. The same neoliberal shite. Corporations and wealthy twats are running (ruining) this country.

No, to continue the decline with policies designed to do this.

Here is a clue for something to cut, just in from Germany’s Brandenburg election result:- Greens … 0 Seats (down from 10 last time).

Many non-medical roles in the NHS are necessary, not pointless. Think about all the admin work that has to be done in a country-wide health system. Also, if you then cut a load of jobs, you lose out on the tax that you would have gained if they were still in work. If you were to, say, cut 100,000 public sector jobs, then those people will be unemployed, and there may well be 100,000 more people claiming universal credit. And that then means the fiscal deficit rises!! I'm not saying that every job in the public sector is vital, but we shouldn't try and implement deflationary policies to combat the economic mess that the UK is in right now. Especially because there is a much more reasonable response, one which Richard Murphy has talked about in many of his other videos - Modern Monetary Theory.

Overseas aid already was cut by a huge amount. Besides, that's not a lot compared to the revenue amounts that Richard has talked about. Why are you focusing on overseas aid and civil service staff? What do you think about capital gains tax? Corporation tax? Tax on wealth and assets and high polluters? What are your thoughts on those which we do not tax nowhere near enough

Because he’s a typical jealous bitter idiot who thinks it ok for people who’ve worked their arses off and subsequently get wealthy only to be forced to give it to strangers rather than their own families!

On your bike then. Never come back.

Bye then

@@SocietalDefibrilation Then you havn't got there tax if you tell everybody to leave.

Richard is not suggesting taxing YOU> he suggests taxing OTT things like flash yachts, smoking, big estates. He wants to lift people out of poverty, not allow the rich to continue to wallow in ludicrous revenues!!!

And they don't help you in your tasks in front of the boss

They never had a "way forward".

Well said.

Typical left-wing thinking. 1st step is to identify & cut the wasted money. The options presented simply encourage tax to go up & up & up. That's the logical conclusion

"Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?" That's a strange analogy. You're either impyling that those people who got higher GCSE grades don't deserve them, or if they do, that billionaires deserve the billions that they have accumulated (stolen) through the work of other people. So, maybe you think that a billionaire has earnt that money all by themselves? Perhaps Elon Musk genuinely has worked hundreds of billions of times harder than his employees and has not benefitted from a lenient tax system and undemocratic corporate structures which favours, obviously, those in charge of decision making 🤣

@@mxj-x2r I had assumed that people would have interpreted this analogy in the context of my message as it would have made sense then, but I will expand on it so that you may understand. First of all I am not implying that those who work hard for their grades don't deserve it, in fact it is the opposite I think they do. The same way the people earn good money (on salaries), have also had to have worked hard for them whether you like it or not. Secondly, it is a quite black/white view by saying billionaires either all deserved or didn't deserve any of it. Also, Net worth is not actualised so it isn't liquid money, and often quite difficult to accurately calculate. Today Musk may be worth $200bn, but tomorrow after a market crash he could be worth $50bn. And success is decided on what you bring to the market, and if you can add value to people's lives. Supply and demand. My point is that those billionaires wouldn't be in the conversation of having their GCSE results shared and redistributed because they would be the ones who would be absolved from it, as they would have helped those who would want that policy implemented, to get into power as they would have paid for their campaigns, and in return those ultra-wealthy would be protected. All the other common folk like your middle and working class who would have had to have worked hard for their grades would be the ones punished once again. That being said, no one earns billions by sitting on their arse, and I sense a bit of frustration (envy) at your describing of how they accumulated their wealth. Yes some may have accumulated their wealth in certain unfavourable ways, but don't let these hypocrites of labour socialists fool you into thinking they'll do something about it (Free-gear Keir is worth north of £7m, Corbyn the communist is worth north of £3m). They'll never be taxed or reprimanded for it because they pull the strings in the first place, funding their politicians to get into power. So don't expect their lenient tax-system to change in any way whatsoever. (Corporate structures is a whole 'nother topic where i agree that the marketplace is being monopolised by big funds - BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street - and give you the illusion of choice whilst squeezing every penny out of your pockets.)

Unlikely that you will lose the 25% discount on council tax.

wow - what a take!

@@RobinHarding-ep1ud weird misunderstanding of the world. Illegal immigrants (sic) are by definition outside the normal requirements for regular immigration and are therefore not subject to any financial qualification requirements. An illegal immigrant going to Spain would not be subject to the same restriction as legal immigrant because they are, em illegal. Same goes for refugees (legal) or legal immigrants working under a visa or from inside the EU. I’m not sure you could be more wrong if you tried.

The ugliness of socialist policies laid bare. I pay tax at a highest marginal rate of 60%. I am not willing to pay a penny more, if my taxes go up I will cut back and the Chancellor will lose more than I do.

It's not the first time he's come up with a recipe for universal poverty. Have a read of the tax proposals he came up with for Common Weal ("A Scottish Tax System - Imagining the Future"). If such idiotic suggestions had been put into practice it would have caused economic collapse.

My previous reply in support has been deleted. Suffice it to say at my level of income more people benefit if I am incentivised to keep grinding away whereas far more people lose including the taxman if more taxes are piled on. You choose.

It's morally repugnant to think that you should be able to drive around in a polluting vehicle, of which the toxic fumes cause a whole host of chronic issues including cancer, stroke, dementia, heart disease, depression and infertility, without paying the necessary costs to cover these externalities. Let's not forget that car driving itself is already heavily subsidised by the state and thus by non-drivers through general taxation. VED and fuel duty do NOT cover the costs of the car usage and infrastructure. Fuel duty has been frozen for years and it is relatively cheaper to drive an ICE vehicle now than it was a decade ago. Explains, as Richard said, why there are SUV's and grotesque pickup trucks everywhere now barrelling down tiny roads causing destruction and death wherever they go. It's also morally repugnant to think that extremely wealthy people should be able to pass down their ill-gotten gains to their descendants, thus passing down priveleges and advantages that the majority of the population will never receive, without giving just a bit more back to society to address the rampant generational inequality. This is not about getting rid of all inheritance, it's about making it fairer so that somebody can't just receive billions of pounds of assets and wealth by pure luck and chance. Look how that's worked out in the UK so far? We have a seemingly unremovable aristocracy that has and continues to cause devastation to the land in the UK. These so called 'custodians' of the land have effectively mismanaged and ruined it. This is not about you, unless you're mega rich. The selfishness of some of the replies is quite astounding. The Thatcherite legacy is still running strong in the UK. It's all about 'me', not about society. Look where that has led us to. (edit: spelling/typos)

@mxj-x2r Nah, UK started going downhill when it abolished slavery and gave voting rights to non-property owners. In the interest of the country, we should start treating those on benefits as second class citizens, in particular they should not get the right to vote. If you don't contribute, then you should have no right to decide how the money is distributed

So, a large number of educated people believe one thing, and a single academic believes another. And you believe...

@MrMassivefavour unfortunately it's chicken and egg. Saying that taxes Don't fund expenditure is technically true. However, if you do not tax to cover expenditure, then inflation is violent because the money you have printed is worthless. So you tax to cover expenditure, or you only spend tax money, SAME THING. Be careful of who you accuse of being a moron because, essentially, they are just as correct as you are.

Agree and the stitch up just continues with the obvious establishment plants of Starmer and Reeves.

Really I’ve not heard them?

And this guy is advocating more.

Brain drain is quite a strange (media created) and fairly disprespectful term to use. Especially considering it seems to discount the millions of people on so called 'low-skilled' work who do vastly more important work every day than your average banker and accountant does. You do realise we can also just train and educate people with the right public investment right? People who are willing to pay a fair share of tax relative to their wealth will always stay and work here. The others, good riddance to em. Many scientists and other professionals will gladly come from other countries to work here if necessary.

@@cleanhit777 He's advocating better targeted tax, and if you watched the video, he explains that it will benefit the majority of people and affect the wealthiest just a bit more. As it absolutely should. I would go even further and have a 100% tax rate on wealth and assets over £1 billion. Because we just do not need billionaires to exist.

Agree. Taxes are already the highest they've been in 70 years. How is that working out for everyone? On the "brain drain" - it's amazing how many people have left UK in recent years - YT is full of them! I don't know if they are in the official figures though.

Why would the inheritance tax be hundreds of thousands? How much is the inheritance?

You can get agricultural relief.

@@debbiegilmour6171 ; Yes Debbie … You can get agricultural relief now - but in this video the mad professor is saying Labour should rid of it ! … (Which would cause a significant transfer of land from small holdings to giant corporations re-enforcing the belief that Labour, especially Starmer, hate the native English).

@@Hickalum It's not that they hate the native English (though that is a ridiculous notion for a party that is meant to be "British"), it's that they love mega corporations far too much. But I'm sure nobody is suggesting that generational farmers be afflicted by a removal of agricultural relief.

That! Worked 75+ hours on average every week over my entire working life. Didn't pay myself dividends because it was wrong IMO, so paid myself PAYE. I'm not very wealthy, just about scrape into the millionaire bracket, but I worked hard for every penny. There should be some recognition of that.

Workers and businesses don't share the same values so I don't know why you have lumped them together. Amazon is a business and would you say it is being crushed through taxation? Unless you mean small businesses, then I share some sympathy. Reducing spending is the complete opposite of what we need to do. Public services and the public domain have already deteriorated so much in the UK, how can we possibly let that degradation carry on as you suggest? The private sector has ruined most of the public utilities they have been handed, such as water, rail, staffing, etc etc. They need to be removed from the public sector. 10 million are not working because of massive taxes? are you sure that's the reason, where did you get that analysis from?

Very good you just make people redundant, who then will make up your consumers and tax payers, you know the people that pay tax and buy your goods and services???????????????????????????

@@scottyfive4319 I was fortunate enough to never have to make anyone compulsorily redundant. We're not talking about mass redundancies here. People made individual choices on where they were going to take their work, their education, or indeed bring forward their retirement plans. Not everyone who leaves work becomes economically inactive and becomes the recipient of state benefits.

@@davidatkinson-lifematters4826 Well I have been made redundant twice, once because the company ultimately moved to another country and once due to lack of orders, although 5 months later they received a world manufacturing order for an American oil company. Both times I was too young to retire and did different things. In my experience it is very rare for redundancy to come at the right time, having said that a few hundred of the 2.5K+ people made redundant at the first place I worked were within the 55 - 65 age group with often 30+ years of service, so had choices.

Wait until you hear about the massive private sector bureaucracy and consultancy work they spaff billions on. You'll be fuming!

How please?

As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by a widely known crypto consultant

She is Expert Rachel Friedman

Trading crypto now should be wise, but trading without an expert isn't advisable. I tried trading on my own but keep on losing. I think I'll give her a try

Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Rachel Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman

You need to look into the detail though

Na! She is just Frit!

She showed these disturbing proclivities in 2015, and has been rewarded by the plum job...

A lot of people paying relatively small amounts of CGT can probably "defer" the CGT to a later year if the person does not need the money to live on or, for example, if a landlord can keep renting somewhere out rather than sell a property. According to the government, most CGT comes from the small number of taxpayers who make the largest gains. In the 2022 to 2023 tax year, 41% of CGT came from those who made gains of £5 million or more. This group represents less than 1% of CGT taxpayers each year. 8% of CGT came from disposals that qualified for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) i.e. the selling or liquidation of companies. London and the South East of England accounted for around half of total gains (48%) and CGT liability (50%). About 10% came from property sales. Approximately one third of CGT taxpayers have gains under £25,000 and this group contributes around 1% of total CGT. 66% of total CGT comes from those making more than £1m gain. So why is the CGT allowance so bloody low? Raise the allowance a bit and raise the tax. If all the people making up to £50k gain were not taxed then CGT tax revenue would go down by just 3.5%. The admin burden would reduce and a large number of people will pay less individual tax while the richest can be taxed more. E.g. ignoring any allowance change, increase the tax by just 2% on those who make >£1m gain and you probably have an increase in CGT tax revenue of about 7%. Please, challenge my figures; they could be wrong.

@@jam99 If you raise it then it should be index linked, quite simple so assets that you have held for a long time do not get disproportionately taxed.

Likewise removing agricultural inheritance tax relief. This would prompt a significant redistribution of farmland from private ownership to giant corporations (who don’t pay inheritance tax). And, no doubt, re-enforce the popular belief that Labour, and Starmer in particular, hate the ethnic English.

Said land would probably need rezoning for building, prices would increase because people would need to get the tax money back on the deal, (they arent going to lose on the sale ) so prices go up, land that is green belt gets rezoned for housing, and every o0ne is worse off.

The vast majority of people on UC do not receive that amount at all. Are you talking about the maximum cap? Also, free travel and free parking? Are you just making this up? Send me links to where you got this information from please!

This channel is it...

Now you have a great template to us😃

Unless you have more than one house.

@27july1954: the problem is how to define rich. One person's rich is another person's well-off, is another's poor. How do you define rich?

People already pay an effective rate of 62% between £100-125k. On fuel duty on flights, by treaty, it can't be done on international flights.

@@mikefish8226 only for some of your income and it would still bring in plenty of money. As for fuel duty on flights, that was true in the EU, and it doesn´t affect domestic flights anyway.

@Minimmalmythicist What do you think I meant by "it can't be done on international flights" meant? You are just repeating back things in a different way that adds no value. There's very few domestic flights, for example MAN-LHR, is only 3 flights per day. Many of the domestic flights are actually supporting isolated and poorer communities like the Scottish islands. On "some of your income" above that, they are paying 45% and have no tax-free allowance and strict limits on pension contributions. The "rich" already pay the vast majority of income tax. We have a spending problem. We have an immigration problem. We don't have a tax being too low problem.

@@mikefish8226 "What do you think I meant by "it can't be done on international flights" meant? You are just repeating back things in a different way that adds no value" Wrong, I just looked it up, we couldn´t on EU flights when we were a member but now we can.

@@mikefish8226 "There's very few domestic flights, for example MAN-LHR, is only 3 flights per day" Wrong Easyjet has about 60,000 in a year

Your evidence?

used to call that council houses think they got rid of most of them by selling them off cheap

What sort of investments? And what sort of taxes?

@@debbiegilmour6171perhaps a better way of putting it would be, which of these taxes would incentivise companies and people with wealth to invest in the UK. They seem to doing the reverse.

But the people that buy luxury items won't want that. And they get to decide the rules

@@chrishart8548 Well while that is partly true (Rich people lobby the government) but it not 100% true or there would be less VAT on luxury items. But it will be the luxury good companies that would lobby government hardest as they will worry their sales will fall with higher VAT. The question is would an extra 5% or 10% VAT reduce consumption of luxury good... of that I am not sure and one way to find out is to give it a try.

What is a luxury item? Surely a 72inch TV is a luxury when a 24" one is sufficient for most people. Any other bright ideas?

@@kevinsyd2012 I've been given 3x 42" lcd TV for free as friends upgraded. It's actually really small it's hard to see wants even going on

​@@smellypunks Hey, I know. Why don't we give Communism a go as well?. Lenin and Marx can't BOTH be wrong.

VAT hits the poorest most because the poorest spend all their money, whereas the rich only spend a small fraction of their money. Tax should be on income, not spending.

@@tonyy452all the others I mentioned they are scared to tax , this guy is wrong about carbon , I thought he had more brains than get fooled by the climate wombles , the weather is not controlled by carbon , forget that and houses are not that expensive , people seem to believe they have a right to buy one without putting in the effort , if they work and save some money young people can easily afford high quality housing

@@v8interceptor134 You refer to "climate wombles". Do you really expect your comments to be taken seriously?

@@helenheenan3447 you really think a carbon tax will change the weather ? If so can you detail what weather we can expect with differing levels of carbon tax ?