Yes - it's applying the Conservative theory of 'Trickle-down' wealth. The theory is that by allowing the very rich to keep more of their money, they will be more likely to invest that money into more wealth-generating projects, thus boosting the economy. It would (in theory) also help to prevent a 'brain-drain', where the most entrepreneurial and/or intelligent of our society take their 'brilliance' elsewhere to another country, where they won't have to pay as much tax. On paper this theory is pretty logical - it claims to encourages investment and retains the clever 'movers and shakers'. However, it is based upon some important assumptions; (a) That most of the ultra-rich are self-made entrepreneurial genius's, who are desperate to expand their empires, but are hindered from doing so by the personal tax system. (b) That 'brilliant' people are driven entirely by money and the need/desire to make more (c) That these people will choose to invest their new-found wealth HERE in the UK. In reality, however, many (not all) of these 'super-rich', simply inherited their wealth, which is invested for them by their accountants and stockbrokers in various financial schemes and bonds. They are unlikely to change their direction and suddenly open a factory in the UK somewhere employing loads of people, to boost the economy. Even those Richard Bransons or Elon Musks of the world would think twice about suddenly pouring their new money into schemes in the UK - they are shrewd enough to look at the bigger picture; how stable is the government for a start - 'if I invest loads of money here in the UK today, will a change of government - or government policy - take it away from me next week/month/year'? I hate to say it, but the UK doesn't look a very safe place to invest right now - we don't know what the next u-turn will be - or even who the Prime Minister will be next week - and so it would be more sensible to sit on the money so that little Tarquin or Imogen can have an even bigger inheritance when they shuffle off...... Also, most of our professors and top scientists are not motivated by money. They are motivated by discovery and knowledge. They won't up sticks and leave just to have a couple more £thousand in the bank. However, they MIGHT leave if their WORK is better funded elsewhere. In the meantime, we have non-profit making essential services which are VERY expensive which need to be funded; Health, Police, Fire, Schools, Defence, environmental (waste collection/disposal etc). So - we have a problem. Where is the money going to come from? Labour would tax the rich and make them pay. Again, that system looks logical in theory; take money from those who can easily afford it, to subsidise the services and fund regeneration schemes - FORCING the reinvestment of money, rather than leaving it up to the mega-rich to invest it themselves off their own back if they feel like it. The flaw in this scheme is that you won't actually raise that much revenue by taxing the super-rich. The vast majority of tax is raised from people paying the basic rate of income tax - and from VAT. It might make some envious people who are struggling to make ends meet feel slightly better for a while, knowing that Lord Snotrag is being hammered and has had to cancel one of his usual 4 holidays to San Moritz this year, but in real terms it won't actually generate much more revenue. We need to encourage the right type of investment - lasting investment that is stable and as permanent as possible. My own opinion is that we should make a small but symbolic cut to Corporation Tax. We should also listen to businesses and ask them what they feel are the blockers or challenges that they are facing and take steps to address them - like local planning laws preventing businesses opening for example. There is a lot that can be done - but it must be done carefully, so as not to spook the markets. Like it or not we have an internationally- dependant economic base. We NEED other countries to have confidence in us as a trading nation - and right now I don't believe that we inspire that confidence.
But also, those able & fit enough to work, should work and not be allowed to sponge off the Country..
Good post , agree with most of this, only thing I would add in relation to Labours view over the Tory one, is if you target lower, middle income families they are more likely to spend any increase to their income, thus creating more demand, more jobs etc.
That goes without saying, however you have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, do checks or whatever, but don’t make is so complicated, or make genuine claimants feel degraded or guilty about claiming, I’d rather miss a few cheaters than put off genuine claimants.
We would all agree with that, it’s how we determine who falls into that category that is the difficult thing to achieve.
Absolutely agree. There is only so much food, so many cars, clothes, drinks, TVs, musical instruments and other consumables that Lord Snotrag can use. He can only drive one car at a time, thus only consuming one car's worth of fuel (even if it is a 5L Bentley or a 4x4) However, with his income divided up, MANY households could buy and use many of ALL these items, boosting the economy by multiple units. It IS important not to stifle the rich - society needs them and they provide much of the employment, which generates revenue etc etc - but it needs the less well-off too. It's a very fragile balance and wielding swinging changes is a dangerous thing to do. I'd also expect ANY government to work hand-in-glove with the Bank of England - especially during a crisis like the one we find ourselves in. Sadly, politicians want to go it alone time after time. Politics before the country.
Seems that every example we see on the BBC is always mothers with children that have problems. Where are the fathers ? After me and Mrs RP got married we waited 6 years till we could afford children. Believe it or not in those days contraception had been invented. Today ? They can't wait, have kids and expect others to pay. Same with bloody credit cards, they have to have everything immediately. And bu**er the consequences.
People criticise Gordon Brown as chancellor, but the first thing he did when becoming chancellor was make the Bank of England responsible for interests rates, before then the chancellor himself was responsible. Imagine if he hadn’t .
Rubbish, OK a few maybe but not on the scale today. Credit cards were years away. You rarely saw anyone on the box pleading poverty and certainly not daily bulletins. We got on with it, saved till we could afford it. 'Saved', today they've never heard of the word. Mothers are having kids, sometimes with different fathers knowing silly bu**ers like me will be paying for them. As I was told - 'you've made your bed, lie on it'.
Whilst I agree with you to a great extent, a local acquaintance of mine knew everything that anyone needed to know about the welfare system as it stood even in those days (70's/early 80's). As far as I am aware he never did a days proper work in his life other than for back-handers/cash in hand and simply "got by"
Pretty sure late60s early 70s (my days saving for marriage) there were also some who took the p*ss. But my point is it's on a totally different level now. And it gets on my flaming nerves.
It happened in those days as well, an aunty of mine knew all the scams, as did all her friends , that was late 60’s, & 70’s, it’s been going on for years. I’m not saying it’s right because it isn’t, but it’s not a Modern phenomenon
I suppose that like everything else, everyone now "knows" what's going on because of social media etc. What gets my goat though, is when you see someone, (male/female/other) with dyed hair and covered in tatts, pleading poverty. I suppose you shouldn't criticize as it's probably within their human rights to be an individual at our expense!!
I agree it’s annoying, it’s difficult to judge though as mostly we don’t know their history, they may have been recently made redundant, but I know what you mean.
If some polls and predictions are to believed, and if there was a general ejection now and Sir BLM fan won it outright, the Tories wouldn’t even have enough seats to officially be the opposition party It would be the SNP That’s how far Boris has dragged the UK down and Truss and Comrade Hunt are following the downward spiral And whilst I may be in the minority here, for me it all comes back to his lack of integrity
They are down in the gutter mate and they desrve to be there but look across at the opposition, a pretentsious, foul mouth bunch of Brussels admirerers, led by Captain Hindsight, they are just the same,bathing in their own flotsam and jetsam, what ever has happened to our nation, we are in for a stormy and horrible period.
