UK Politics Thread: The Mandelson Effect

[Herargon]

If you want authoritarianism removed, then you'd be best off supporting the Greens. They're a merry bunch and actually stand for making Britain great again.

What the Greens want:
- Higher wages
- An end to everything being expensive
- Removing police power
- Low energy bills
- Proportional representation

snip

Except that the Greens do want lower energy bills, and make sure that you can have lower costs. In my area they're in power, and have helped me in lowering those bills. They're good folk.

They want to foster not industry, but the people, in being independent and secure, without companies preying on them. For that, you have to support industries without feeding them precious tax money; by reducing prices for green production, for example.
I don't know what media you're consuming that fed you this fake news, but lowering energy bills can also be generated through environment-friendly methods. In fact, if one method would help, it is what I've mentioned. Obviously, it's not the only solution, but it's much handier than getting your lungs full of coal and fine dust.
Energy prices rose so much, because of the Russian invasion and the gas industry causing prices to spike. Thus, the answer would be to regulate those industries, nationalising them, so that they are in control of the public, rather than a few corrupt profiteers.

The investment is worth making Britain energy-independent. You also realise that investments can be financed through actually properly taxing billionnaires? One never becomes a billionnaire except through tax evasion, dodging, and all sorts of scummy practices harming the British workers.

You don't have to agree with me, but it is worth to stop for a second and consider those thoughts.

[Imperializt Russia]

And how will Reform actually be better? Given how much of that is down to Brexit.

Ah yes the lets dismiss labours terrible actions because brexit.
Its the classic excuse to blame someone else for the faliures of the labour party.
Taxes high? Blame the tories. Economy bad? Blame brexit and the tories.

If they didn't want to be blamed, they shouldn't have fucked it, should they?

Causal factors are lost on you.

[Vassenor]

And how will Reform actually be better? Given how much of that is down to Brexit.

Ah yes the lets dismiss labours terrible actions because brexit.
Its the classic excuse to blame someone else for the faliures of the labour party.
Taxes high? Blame the tories. Economy bad? Blame brexit and the tories.

The current state of britain is because of the labour party.
Because rachel reeves is a terrible chancellor and has continued to damage the economy by just making taxes higher.
Which in turn leads to lower income tax which leads to higher taxes.
Labour has caused the current downward spiral of debt and higher taxes themselves.

The economy was starting to slowly somewhat recover under the conservatives after covid but labour have made all the small gains useless.

I get that we're not allowed to criticise Brexit or suggest it has had a negative impact, but this is just getting ridiculous.

[Celritannia]

And how will Reform actually be better? Given how much of that is down to Brexit.

Ah yes the lets dismiss labours terrible actions because brexit.
Its the classic excuse to blame someone else for the faliures of the labour party.
Taxes high? Blame the tories. Economy bad? Blame brexit and the tories.

The current state of britain is because of the labour party.
Because rachel reeves is a terrible chancellor and has continued to damage the economy by just making taxes higher.
Which in turn leads to lower income tax which leads to higher taxes.
Labour has caused the current downward spiral of debt and higher taxes themselves.

The economy was starting to slowly somewhat recover under the conservatives after covid but labour have made all the small gains useless.

Because all of that is evidential.

No, the labour party, while it has some awful policies, did not cause austerity for over 14 years and lead the UK out of the EU which shrank the economy, losing major international investment, and reducing small buisnesses a massive and important market. Not to mention the losing out on the EU regional development scheme.

The economy only went back to its pre-brexit status, it wasn't a recovery, nor was it beneficial, it was simply returning to normal.

[Imperializt Russia]

I have literally only ever lived in places that were beneficiaries from the EU regional development scheme.

here's the UK Government's operating document for the 2014-2020 round of funding. It constituted 3.6 billion euros of EU money, to be topped by a matching amount of UK Gov spending and private investment in the same schemes - so schemes totalling 7.2 billion euros, at the cost of just 3.6bn of our own money.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ff579738fa8f53b7bad84a6/ERDF_Operational_Programme__Exec_Summary_Dec_2020.pdf

My shit-tier angryposting is literally brought to you by a broadband connection paid for with EU money.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

I have literally only ever lived in places that were beneficiaries from the EU regional development scheme.

here's the UK Government's operating document for the 2014-2020 round of funding. It constituted 3.6 billion euros of EU money, to be topped by a matching amount of UK Gov spending and private investment in the same schemes - so schemes totalling 7.2 billion euros, at the cost of just 3.6bn of our own money.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ff579738fa8f53b7bad84a6/ERDF_Operational_Programme__Exec_Summary_Dec_2020.pdf

My shit-tier angryposting is literally brought to you by a broadband connection paid for with EU money.

We were the second highest net contributor to the EU behind Germany.
So what if some projects were funded by EU money? We still payed in more than we got out of it.
While eastern European nations like Poland for example got way more from the EU than they payed into it.
Which was one of the arguments for brexit that we were being fleeced for money to spend on Eastern europe.
Why should we fund roads in Poland while getting token investment back was a question asked.
According to the BBC in 2019 it was £6.55bn

Anyways why are we arguing on brexit like its 2016?
Its happend so the best thing now is to ensure we have the best deal possible

[Herargon]

Which in turn leads to lower income tax which leads to higher taxes.

Please stop for a second and realise that you're saying "lower tax is higher tax".

The higher tax is not on you; that is not how progressive tax works.
It's on the billionnaires and cronies. If they are taxed properly, then you will actually pay less, as you're not one of those billionnaires.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

Which in turn leads to lower income tax which leads to higher taxes.

Please stop for a second and realise that you're saying "lower tax is higher tax".

Ah I missed out a word there my apologies.
What i mean is that because of the lower amount of profit/income a bussiness makes due to the higher taxes elsewhere.
Then that results in the government taking less earnings on income tax.
So by having higher taxes in one area you are going to earn less in other areas.
Or just earn nothing because the high tax has caused the bussiness to shut down.
So in order to deal with less income from the income tax that means they need to keep raising taxes.
So higher taxes causes you to keep increasing taxes to the point you collapse the economy due to the tax rate being too high
Labour has dragged us into a doom cycle of higher taxes.

[Camtropia]

Ah yes the lets dismiss labours terrible actions because brexit.
Its the classic excuse to blame someone else for the faliures of the labour party.
Taxes high? Blame the tories. Economy bad? Blame brexit and the tories.

The current state of britain is because of the labour party.
Because rachel reeves is a terrible chancellor and has continued to damage the economy by just making taxes higher.
Which in turn leads to lower income tax which leads to higher taxes.
Labour has caused the current downward spiral of debt and higher taxes themselves.

The economy was starting to slowly somewhat recover under the conservatives after covid but labour have made all the small gains useless.

Because all of that is evidential.

No, the labour party, while it has some awful policies, did not cause austerity for over 14 years and lead the UK out of the EU which shrank the economy, losing major international investment, and reducing small buisnesses a massive and important market. Not to mention the losing out on the EU regional development scheme.

The economy only went back to its pre-brexit status, it wasn't a recovery, nor was it beneficial, it was simply returning to normal.

If anything, while the state of the country can squarely be blamed on the Tories, Labour is doing nothing to fix it by essentially bringing back austerity.

The past 15 years should have shown that we can't get out of this mess by penny-pinching. The earlier cuts to public services, combined with the obsession with the Triple Lock above all other social spending, have come back to bite us in the form of giant NHS waiting lists and a mental health crisis that combined have put millions out of work and ballooned the spending needed to just keep the country functioning.

The country needs investment - temporary budget increases to the NHS, social services, and immigration enforcement to clear the backlogs; grants to pioneering companies with emerging technologies instead of propping up decaying giants (if they're "too big to fail", nationalise them instead of throwing money at them); digital and physical infrastructure (and looser planning regulations so it's possible to actually build stuff); and investment in our future by raising the education budget.

Yes there would have to be borrowing and/or windfall taxes, but austerity has not worked and will not work, and we are rapidly falling behind the rest of the Western world (let alone China etc).

[Ifreann]

Which in turn leads to lower income tax which leads to higher taxes.

Please stop for a second and realise that you're saying "lower tax is higher tax".

He's clearly saying that lower tax revenues will lead to higher tax rates.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

Please stop for a second and realise that you're saying "lower tax is higher tax".

He's clearly saying that lower tax revenues will lead to higher tax rates.

Thats my point.
The government is losing revenue on tax due to bussiness failing or the rich leaving.
So in turn they are increasing taxes to try to make up the shortfall otherwise they would have to borrow.
But the higher taxes causes even less income gained due to even more bussiness shutdowns and even more higher earnees leaving causing an even bigger loss of income for the state.
So they put it up again and again until they get so high that it causes an economic depression
You could also use a similar argument to why wealth taxes just mean you lose the people paying higher taxes in the first place but thats a different issue.

[Celritannia]

I have literally only ever lived in places that were beneficiaries from the EU regional development scheme.

here's the UK Government's operating document for the 2014-2020 round of funding. It constituted 3.6 billion euros of EU money, to be topped by a matching amount of UK Gov spending and private investment in the same schemes - so schemes totalling 7.2 billion euros, at the cost of just 3.6bn of our own money.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ff579738fa8f53b7bad84a6/ERDF_Operational_Programme__Exec_Summary_Dec_2020.pdf

My shit-tier angryposting is literally brought to you by a broadband connection paid for with EU money.

We were the second highest net contributor to the EU behind Germany.
So what if some projects were funded by EU money? We still payed in more than we got out of it.
While eastern European nations like Poland for example got way more from the EU than they payed into it.
Which was one of the arguments for brexit that we were being fleeced for money to spend on Eastern europe.
Why should we fund roads in Poland while getting token investment back was a question asked.
According to the BBC in 2019 it was £6.55bn

Anyways why are we arguing on brexit like its 2016?
Its happend so the best thing now is to ensure we have the best deal possible

A d the UK and its citizens had access to the largest market, with international companies seeing the UK as a gateway tonthe EU, where UK buisnesses, small buisnesses could sell their otherwise looked over products into the EU, where there were no restriction on working, traveling, studying, and staying in the EU, where collaboration of science and arts saw massive investment from the EU, where UK farmers.could sell their crops to the EU and make a good profit, where the UK got regional development funding for run down towns.

All their lost because Farage built up a personality of hating the EU and yet still benefits personal from it.

The best deal is the UK working closely with the EU, and in fact, the majority of Britons support rejoining, along with major EU nations.

[Herargon]

Please stop for a second and realise that you're saying "lower tax is higher tax".

Ah I missed out a word there my apologies.
What i mean is that because of the lower amount of profit/income a bussiness makes due to the higher taxes elsewhere.
Then that results in the government taking less earnings on income tax.
So by having higher taxes in one area you are going to earn less in other areas.
Or just earn nothing because the high tax has caused the bussiness to shut down.
So in order to deal with less income from the income tax that means they need to keep raising taxes.
snip

Applogies taken. But, no, progressive taxation does not work that way. Allow me to give an example.

Take an income of £ 35,000 per year.
Let's say there are four brackets.
Bracket 1 is £ 0-15,000. That has a tax rate of 0%.
Bracket 2 is £ 15,000-30,000. That has a tax rate of 20%.
Bracket 3 is 30,000-80,000. That has a tax rate of 40%.
Bracket 4 is anything beyond. That has a tax rate of 60%.

You then would pay:
Bracket 1: £ 0 tax
Bracket 2: 15,000 x 0,2 = £ 3,000 tax.
Bracket 3: 5,000 x 0,4 = £ 2,000 tax.
Bracket 4: N/A.

This is because you basically divide the income into small pies, which each are taxed according to that bracket.

Under that system, you'd pay £ 5,000 in tax.
Someone earning £ 200,000 would pay £ 95,000 in tax.
The end result is that you earn £ 20,000, while the other earns £ 105,000.

If you had a flat tax of 25% (as many flat-taxers propose), what would happen?
You'd pay £ 6,250, which is more. So you get poorer.
The rich bastard and his company? Pays only £ 50,000 in tax. And with that, he bribes politicians to make you work longer hours, while he mooches off, and does nothing. He gets richer and you get poorer.

The government now, instead of earning £ 100,000 from you both, earns 56,250.
That's almost only half of what it previously was.

We had tax rates of 70% and 90% in the past for the rich and cooperations. And they didn't shut down; it went fine. That's because the common labourer was actually able to buy and thrive, because the tax pressure for the labourer was low, while cooperations were kept in check. Because the tax rates for companies were high, they had to keep costs low, improving their efficiency. Progressive taxation not only makes you better off, it also helps the country back up and keep it safe.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

Ah I missed out a word there my apologies.
What i mean is that because of the lower amount of profit/income a bussiness makes due to the higher taxes elsewhere.
Then that results in the government taking less earnings on income tax.
So by having higher taxes in one area you are going to earn less in other areas.
Or just earn nothing because the high tax has caused the bussiness to shut down.
So in order to deal with less income from the income tax that means they need to keep raising taxes.
snip

Applogies taken. But, no, progressive taxation does not work that way. Allow me to give an example.

Take an income of £ 35,000 per year.
Let's say there are four brackets.
Bracket 1 is £ 0-15,000. That has a tax rate of 0%.
Bracket 2 is £ 15,000-30,000. That has a tax rate of 20%.
Bracket 3 is 30,000-80,000. That has a tax rate of 40%.
Bracket 4 is anything beyond. That has a tax rate of 60%.

You then would pay:
Bracket 1: £ 0 tax
Bracket 2: 15,000 x 0,2 = £ 3,000 tax.
Bracket 3: 5,000 x 0,4 = £ 2,000 tax.
Bracket 4: N/A.

This is because you basically divide the income into small pies, which each are taxed according to that bracket.

Under that system, you'd pay £ 5,000 in tax.
Someone earning £ 200,000 would pay £ 95,000 in tax.
The end result is that you earn £ 20,000, while the other earns £ 105,000.

If you had a flat tax of 25% (as many flat-taxers propose), what would happen?
You'd pay £ 6,250, which is more. So you get poorer.
The rich bastard and his company? Pays only £ 50,000 in tax. And with that, he bribes politicians to make you work longer hours, while he mooches off, and does nothing. He gets richer and you get poorer.

The government now, instead of earning £ 100,000 from you both, earns 56,250.
That's almost only half of what it previously was.

We had tax rates of 70% and 90% in the past for the rich and cooperations. And they didn't shut down; it went fine. That's because the common labourer was actually able to buy and thrive, because the tax pressure for the labourer was low, while cooperations were kept in check. Because the tax rates for companies were high, they had to keep costs low, improving their efficiency. Progressive taxation not only makes you better off, it also helps the country back up and keep it safe.

But that is not what i am even debating against.
Im perfectly fine with the progressive tax system we have in britain thats not the problem.
The problem is the fact that constantly increasing taxes does not net you more tax income in the long run.
Its what labour are finding out.
Due to the high borrowing that they are doing they have to pay off said borrowing so in order to do that they need to get more income.
To do that they of course increase taxes but the more you increase in tax the less you will get since the higher costs push the wealthy to leave the country
And smaller family run corporations and the self employed struggle to survive and close with only the much larger international corporations able to take the blow of higher taxes.
However the costs of said taxes are often instead passed onto the everyday consumer so prices increase.
Higher taxes also cause corporations to cut wages or end wage increases or in the most servere case they stop hiring people since they are unable to afford to do so.

Higher taxes dont damage the wealthy and multinational corporations as much as they damage the smaller and local run mom and pop stores.
However the most damage is on the worker for he either loses his job or wont get payed more than minimum wage.
Which is funny since the left wants to keep increasing taxes that will in turn hurt the worker or the little guy not the big multinational corporations.
So in the long run higher tax leads everyone to lose.
Hense why lower taxes allow a person or coporation to invest and the economy grows.
Though obviously tax is required in order to properly run the country.
So you must have a balance between them.

High tax = economic slowdown. short term gain for the goverment but long term loss.
Low tax = great for corporations and the regular people not so great for the goverment and state.

Futhermore the biggest problem is not just the size of one tax its the ammount we have to pay.
You can have income tax being low but you then have to pay tax via VAT and tax on your fuel ect which eats into what you would of saved from a lower income tax.

[Ostroeuropa]

Third victim quits the grooming gang inquiry. It really is a big Chernobyl moment for the multiculturalists frankly. A demonstration of a kind of rot in the ideology that makes them incapable of running a society without enormous disasters being routine because certain facts are ideologically verboten. Because adherents occupy positions all cross the state, they become incapable of properly investigating the incident and who is to blame because it implicates everybody.

It's like a Chernobyl inquiry simply isn't going to be able to say "The problem was loyalty to the communist party line and those who value this. This attitude caused the disaster.". But that's the truth, so what can they do. Not only would such a finding mean that in order to fix the problem they need to all be fired from top to bottom, their moral compass is completely at odds with reality such that they view such a conclusion as immoral.

We're seeing the same with multiculturalists here. They can't reach the appropriate conclusions because it means a wholesale purge of them and people like them from societal positions and the discrediting of their worldview.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

Third victim quits the grooming gang inquiry. It really is a big Chernobyl moment for the multiculturalists frankly. A demonstration of a kind of rot in the ideology that makes them incapable of running a society without enormous disasters being routine because certain facts are ideologically verboten. Because adherents occupy positions all cross the state, they become incapable of properly investigating the incident and who is to blame because it implicates everybody.

It's like a Chernobyl inquiry simply isn't going to be able to say "The problem was loyalty to the communist party line and those who value this. This attitude caused the disaster.". But that's the truth, so what can they do. Not only would such a finding mean that in order to fix the problem they need to all be fired from top to bottom, their moral compass is completely at odds with reality such that they view such a conclusion as immoral.

We're seeing the same with multiculturalists here. They can't reach the appropriate conclusions because it means a wholesale purge of them and people like them from societal positions and the discrediting of their governance. And yet the alternative is the collapse of the British state over time.

They never wanted to do the inquiry in the first place.
So they are just dragging their feet until they dont have to do it.
Because they are scared.
They are scared of the chaos it would cause if the inquiry happend.
Southport caused large riots, if the inquiry showed government guilt it would send shockwaves across the nation.
So they are putting their head in the sand.
Hopefuly reform will do one if they win the next election.
The victims deserve justice!

[Ostroeuropa]

Third victim quits the grooming gang inquiry. It really is a big Chernobyl moment for the multiculturalists frankly. A demonstration of a kind of rot in the ideology that makes them incapable of running a society without enormous disasters being routine because certain facts are ideologically verboten. Because adherents occupy positions all cross the state, they become incapable of properly investigating the incident and who is to blame because it implicates everybody.

It's like a Chernobyl inquiry simply isn't going to be able to say "The problem was loyalty to the communist party line and those who value this. This attitude caused the disaster.". But that's the truth, so what can they do. Not only would such a finding mean that in order to fix the problem they need to all be fired from top to bottom, their moral compass is completely at odds with reality such that they view such a conclusion as immoral.

We're seeing the same with multiculturalists here. They can't reach the appropriate conclusions because it means a wholesale purge of them and people like them from societal positions and the discrediting of their governance. And yet the alternative is the collapse of the British state over time.

They never wanted to do the inquiry in the first place.
So they are just dragging their feet until they dont have to do it.
Because they are scared.
They are scared of the chaos it would cause if the inquiry happend.
Southport caused large riots, if the inquiry showed government guilt it would send shockwaves across the nation.
So they are putting their head in the sand.
Hopefuly reform will do one if they win the next election.
The victims deserve justice!

They don't want to do the inquiry for the reasons I laid out. It goes beyond merely wanting to defend Muslims for ideological reasons. It's an existential threat to their political movement which completely discredits it. They're putting their head in the sand because the alternative is to declare that they and practically everyone they know should be fired and never be allowed near a position of public trust again, and that they should go down in history books alongside the USSR and Chernobyl as another example of "Egalitarian ideologues cause fuck ups, here is how" due to the similarities in terms of the utter denial of reality, attacking people who pointed it out, loyalty to the party line, and so on.

The riots are symptomatic of this and the breakdown of the state they have caused in a similar fashion to how Chernobyl caused the destruction of USSR legitimacy. It limped on a while afterward but it was no longer capable of being taken seriously as a legitimate governing authority or ideology. This is where the period of "Hypernormalization" came about. We're seeing similar here.

[Celritannia]

Applogies taken. But, no, progressive taxation does not work that way. Allow me to give an example.

Take an income of £ 35,000 per year.
Let's say there are four brackets.
Bracket 1 is £ 0-15,000. That has a tax rate of 0%.
Bracket 2 is £ 15,000-30,000. That has a tax rate of 20%.
Bracket 3 is 30,000-80,000. That has a tax rate of 40%.
Bracket 4 is anything beyond. That has a tax rate of 60%.

You then would pay:
Bracket 1: £ 0 tax
Bracket 2: 15,000 x 0,2 = £ 3,000 tax.
Bracket 3: 5,000 x 0,4 = £ 2,000 tax.
Bracket 4: N/A.

This is because you basically divide the income into small pies, which each are taxed according to that bracket.

Under that system, you'd pay £ 5,000 in tax.
Someone earning £ 200,000 would pay £ 95,000 in tax.
The end result is that you earn £ 20,000, while the other earns £ 105,000.

If you had a flat tax of 25% (as many flat-taxers propose), what would happen?
You'd pay £ 6,250, which is more. So you get poorer.
The rich bastard and his company? Pays only £ 50,000 in tax. And with that, he bribes politicians to make you work longer hours, while he mooches off, and does nothing. He gets richer and you get poorer.

The government now, instead of earning £ 100,000 from you both, earns 56,250.
That's almost only half of what it previously was.

We had tax rates of 70% and 90% in the past for the rich and cooperations. And they didn't shut down; it went fine. That's because the common labourer was actually able to buy and thrive, because the tax pressure for the labourer was low, while cooperations were kept in check. Because the tax rates for companies were high, they had to keep costs low, improving their efficiency. Progressive taxation not only makes you better off, it also helps the country back up and keep it safe.

But that is not what i am even debating against.
Im perfectly fine with the progressive tax system we have in britain thats not the problem.
The problem is the fact that constantly increasing taxes does not net you more tax income in the long run.
Its what labour are finding out.
Due to the high borrowing that they are doing they have to pay off said borrowing so in order to do that they need to get more income.
To do that they of course increase taxes but the more you increase in tax the less you will get since the higher costs push the wealthy to leave the country
And smaller family run corporations and the self employed struggle to survive and close with only the much larger international corporations able to take the blow of higher taxes.
However the costs of said taxes are often instead passed onto the everyday consumer so prices increase.
Higher taxes also cause corporations to cut wages or end wage increases or in the most servere case they stop hiring people since they are unable to afford to do so.

Higher taxes dont damage the wealthy and multinational corporations as much as they damage the smaller and local run mom and pop stores.
However the most damage is on the worker for he either loses his job or wont get payed more than minimum wage.
Which is funny since the left wants to keep increasing taxes that will in turn hurt the worker or the little guy not the big multinational corporations.
So in the long run higher tax leads everyone to lose.
Hense why lower taxes allow a person or coporation to invest and the economy grows.
Though obviously tax is required in order to properly run the country.
So you must have a balance between them.

High tax = economic slowdown. short term gain for the goverment but long term loss.
Low tax = great for corporations and the regular people not so great for the goverment and state.

Futhermore the biggest problem is not just the size of one tax its the ammount we have to pay.
You can have income tax being low but you then have to pay tax via VAT and tax on your fuel ect which eats into what you would of saved from a lower income tax.

You forget that you set taxes that will be paid by the wealthy, especially those on assets.

Take the taxes on farm land for example. Those taxes are not overly affecting actual farmers, only those who buy land to use itntomevade taxes.

Again, you can set taxes to target the wealthy without affecting independent and locally run buisnesses.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

But that is not what i am even debating against.
Im perfectly fine with the progressive tax system we have in britain thats not the problem.
The problem is the fact that constantly increasing taxes does not net you more tax income in the long run.
Its what labour are finding out.
Due to the high borrowing that they are doing they have to pay off said borrowing so in order to do that they need to get more income.
To do that they of course increase taxes but the more you increase in tax the less you will get since the higher costs push the wealthy to leave the country
And smaller family run corporations and the self employed struggle to survive and close with only the much larger international corporations able to take the blow of higher taxes.
However the costs of said taxes are often instead passed onto the everyday consumer so prices increase.
Higher taxes also cause corporations to cut wages or end wage increases or in the most servere case they stop hiring people since they are unable to afford to do so.

Higher taxes dont damage the wealthy and multinational corporations as much as they damage the smaller and local run mom and pop stores.
However the most damage is on the worker for he either loses his job or wont get payed more than minimum wage.
Which is funny since the left wants to keep increasing taxes that will in turn hurt the worker or the little guy not the big multinational corporations.
So in the long run higher tax leads everyone to lose.
Hense why lower taxes allow a person or coporation to invest and the economy grows.
Though obviously tax is required in order to properly run the country.
So you must have a balance between them.

High tax = economic slowdown. short term gain for the goverment but long term loss.
Low tax = great for corporations and the regular people not so great for the goverment and state.

Futhermore the biggest problem is not just the size of one tax its the ammount we have to pay.
You can have income tax being low but you then have to pay tax via VAT and tax on your fuel ect which eats into what you would of saved from a lower income tax.

You forget that you set taxes that will be paid by the wealthy, especially those on assets.

Take the taxes on farm land for example. Those taxes are not overly affecting actual farmers, only those who buy land to use itntomevade taxes.

Again, you can set taxes to target the wealthy without affecting independent and locally run buisnesses.

The problem with that is that the wealthy are the most mobile.
They can easily move out of the country and take any income from the taxes with them.
We already have a progressive income tax system.
We dont need to throw anymore taxes at the rich.
If you want to just increase the income tax that the rich will need to pay but again that brings you back to the first point.
The wealthy do anything to legally avoid as much tax as they can.
So if you tax them too high they just leave and you lose any income tax you could of made from them
Its a catch-22 issue tbh

[Ostroeuropa]

You forget that you set taxes that will be paid by the wealthy, especially those on assets.

Take the taxes on farm land for example. Those taxes are not overly affecting actual farmers, only those who buy land to use itntomevade taxes.

Again, you can set taxes to target the wealthy without affecting independent and locally run buisnesses.

The problem with that is that the wealthy are the most mobile.
They can easily move out of the country and take any income from the taxes with them.
We already have a progressive income tax system.
We dont need to throw anymore taxes at the rich.
If you want to just increase the income tax that the rich will need to pay but again that brings you back to the first point.
The wealthy do anything to legally avoid as much tax as they can.
So if you tax them too high they just leave and you lose any income tax you could of made from them
Its a catch-22 issue tbh

Something unstated in all this is the sociocultural incentives involved. To some degree it is beneficial to the country that some types of rich people piss off abroad as a consequence of higher taxes. Ideally you want to seperate the wheat from the chaffe.

The most disloyal and most selfish rich people staying here is an overall detriment to our society, and represent precisely the type of people who will cause institutional rot by demanding they be sold things like the public water so they can run it into the ground for a profit at the expense of everyone else. You want taxes high enough that they throw a tantrum and leave (In the process removing a burden from society), while not high enough to cause those with slightly more of a conscience to also leave.

We talk about it as though the rich will all operate as a bloc but that's simply not true. The first to leave will be those we are better off without, and so we should in fact view this as a positive direction to pursue. If you look around and notice some absolute melts are in the upper class, it's time to raise taxes on them. They'll pitch a fit and fuck off. That's a good thing. You don't want people like that living in the country and constantly using their money to fuck it up. Indeed, geopolitically, it's advantageous for them to flee to hostile countries because they represent an overall negative contribution.

The balance isn't between "Fund public services" and "Be nice to the rich". It's "Get the most undesirable of the rich to fuck off while keeping the others around".

Our ruling class demonstrably has some absolute melts in it. Consequently, we should be raising taxes with an eye towards chasing them out of the country. We don't want our country attractive to the type of people who put their own wealth above public wellbeing to the extent we currently do. As such, target wealth for the benefit of public wellbeing and escalate over time until the ruling class which remain have a social conscience. At that stage, it's a matter of striking a balance. Not before.

As an example, if raising taxes by 0.1% would get Jimmy McHealthcare to pitch a fit and fuck off rather than constantly lobbying to try and buy the NHS so he can dismantle it for a quick buck, that's a good thing. Meanwhile, James Normalman is probably just going to mutter a bit about it but carry on selling shoes because by definition he's going to be less bothered. (To Jimmy, it represents a wholly negative attack on him. To James, he may prefer the money, but he does also like public wellbeing. That's why he's not a fucknugget trying to dismantle public utilities, and why causing Jimmy to flee the country is an overall benefit to us all, even if we can't tax him anymore).

The threshhold there in terms of utility is for every pound of value you tax them, Jimmy loses a pound of utility. James loses a pound of utility, but gains utility from public expenditure. Jimmy will always be the first to flee as a consequence.

Put it this way GBR, if there was a dynamic whereby raising taxes on the working classes would mean that while they would all eventually fuck off, the first ones to start fucking off would be all the criminals and such, why wouldn't we slowly raise taxes on the working classes until that happened, then stop?

The ideal tax rate leads to quite a few rich people throwing a shitfit and leaving. Ideally to places like China or Russia.

[Herargon]

You forget that you set taxes that will be paid by the wealthy, especially those on assets.

Take the taxes on farm land for example. Those taxes are not overly affecting actual farmers, only those who buy land to use itntomevade taxes.

Again, you can set taxes to target the wealthy without affecting independent and locally run buisnesses.

Yup. Another means is to tax dividend and to close tax loopholes, such as through information sharing of finances between countries.
Income-dependent fines also help a lot.
Not all taxes are income-based. Some taxes are much harder to evade, even for billionnaires. It's then still worth to tax these higher.
Plus, being well-off, I'd rather pay tax to a country where I know the money will be used to further society thanks to Corbyn and Zack, rather than to fill the pockets of grifters and bankers like Tice.

[Slembana]

Because all of that is evidential.

No, the labour party, while it has some awful policies, did not cause austerity for over 14 years and lead the UK out of the EU which shrank the economy, losing major international investment, and reducing small buisnesses a massive and important market. Not to mention the losing out on the EU regional development scheme.

The economy only went back to its pre-brexit status, it wasn't a recovery, nor was it beneficial, it was simply returning to normal.

If anything, while the state of the country can squarely be blamed on the Tories, Labour is doing nothing to fix it by essentially bringing back austerity.

The past 15 years should have shown that we can't get out of this mess by penny-pinching. The earlier cuts to public services, combined with the obsession with the Triple Lock above all other social spending, have come back to bite us in the form of giant NHS waiting lists and a mental health crisis that combined have put millions out of work and ballooned the spending needed to just keep the country functioning.

The country needs investment - temporary budget increases to the NHS, social services, and immigration enforcement to clear the backlogs; grants to pioneering companies with emerging technologies instead of propping up decaying giants (if they're "too big to fail", nationalise them instead of throwing money at them); digital and physical infrastructure (and looser planning regulations so it's possible to actually build stuff); and investment in our future by raising the education budget.

Yes there would have to be borrowing and/or windfall taxes, but austerity has not worked and will not work, and we are rapidly falling behind the rest of the Western world (let alone China etc).

Exaclty. There is absolutely no need for austerity to be continued.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

If anything, while the state of the country can squarely be blamed on the Tories, Labour is doing nothing to fix it by essentially bringing back austerity.

The past 15 years should have shown that we can't get out of this mess by penny-pinching. The earlier cuts to public services, combined with the obsession with the Triple Lock above all other social spending, have come back to bite us in the form of giant NHS waiting lists and a mental health crisis that combined have put millions out of work and ballooned the spending needed to just keep the country functioning.

The country needs investment - temporary budget increases to the NHS, social services, and immigration enforcement to clear the backlogs; grants to pioneering companies with emerging technologies instead of propping up decaying giants (if they're "too big to fail", nationalise them instead of throwing money at them); digital and physical infrastructure (and looser planning regulations so it's possible to actually build stuff); and investment in our future by raising the education budget.

Yes there would have to be borrowing and/or windfall taxes, but austerity has not worked and will not work, and we are rapidly falling behind the rest of the Western world (let alone China etc).

Exaclty. There is absolutely no need for austerity to be continued.

Labour the party of blame the tories for everything yet also copying the tories.
Plus they mass borrow alongside high taxes creating a complete mess.
They had 14 yesrs to plan yet sat on their ass and now have screwed any chance of reelection

[Slembana]

Exaclty. There is absolutely no need for austerity to be continued.

Labour the party of blame the tories for everything yet also copying the tories.
Plus they mass borrow alongside high taxes creating a complete mess.
They had 14 yesrs to plan yet sat on their ass and now have screwed any chance of reelection

The Labour Party absolute should be trying something different other than trying to out-Tory the Tories.

[Magna-Parva]

Labour the party of blame the tories for everything yet also copying the tories.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers?showme=1629