Why Labour rejects a wealth tax | FT
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2023
- Ahead of the UK general election, Robert Shrimsley, chief political commentator, interviews Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, and John McTernan, a former senior aide to the last Labour prime minister Tony Blair.
This is an edited extract of the conversation at the FTWeekend Festival on September 2 2023. It began with a protest at Labour's decision to rule out a wealth tax if it comes to power next year.
To watch the whole interview and all other festival sessions, register for video on demand at ft.com/festival
#wealthtax #ukpolitics #ukpolicy
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'
How a labour government can accept that the extreme wealth owned by a few individuals is fine is frankly depressing. Greed. Greed. Greed.
It's over, by this conversation (if you are left wing in thinking) you will have another Tory government dressed up as Labour.
Why would the extremely wealthy stay in the UK with a wealth tax introduced. It could mean they even move businesses out the UK and the government loses out on corporate tax revenue. Nothing to do with greed but maximising tax revenue.
@@gitgudgaming506unfortunatly capital supply is pretty elastic
@@gitgudgaming506 If there is a demand, other businesses will fill those gaps. We don’t need the extremely wealthy to stay in the UK. It’s well known that richer people do their utmost best to reduce their tax burdens as much as possible anyway. Let them all leave, I’d rather have a fairer society.
As long as it's legally reducing tax burdens whats wrong with that? HMRC encourage that.@@wltdo6930
Oh please @garyseconomics where are you? We need you back - we need you to lead the fight against this 😭
Honestly, my man must me seething seeing this nonsense
The funniest thing is that Michael Gove supports a wealth tax whereas every single member of the Labour front bench is against one 😂😂
Micheal Gove for prime minister it is then! 😂
@@milvaamelie4624 if they implement a reasonable wealth tax then I'd switch my vote to the Tories 😂
@@KJ-js7pi even if they were to put that in their manifesto I can see them conveniently forgetting about it when the donors complain
Michael Gove 🤡
Michael Gove's "support" for a wealth tax is bogus. His proposals for a wealth tax would be evaded by his tory chums, and would just hit middle-income folks. There is only one wealth tax that would be fair and functional: a Land Value Tax. Gove does not support it.
Reeves sounds like a True Conservative. Desperation oozes out of her ears. She brings no ideas, no vision, nothing worthwhile.
Labour is going to be an unmitigated disaster if it wins the GE.
Labour does not want to be dependent on its members and the trade unions for money.
They want contributions from the rich so.....
So they can do one!! #VoteGreen 💚💚💚
@@oneoflokis likewise i'm voting green too
She is proposing trickle down economics.
Thatcherite kool aid.
basically repeating what all capitalist Politian's do 😂
I suspect Labour's economic plans won't work. Going cap in hand to billionaires will not result in a better outcome for non-billionaires.
That women is saying she wants to improve the living standards for everyone. She is talking about her plans and you can't stop being jealous that someone has more money than you.
Oh yeah I'm sure the middle class and small business owners don't exist in the UK.
why?@tb3667
@tb3667 Taxes don't work for anyone under that 'logic'.
You mean, "going cap in hand", for contributions to Starmer's Labour (which he has nearly bankrupted). So that millionaires and billionaires can dictate Labour policy. Not the membership, which was the way that Corbyn wanted it... 😏
Completely in her own world, her statements confirm no understanding of societies issues.
based on what? this is simply an ad hominem attack -- valueless comment.
@@yutyuiiu It's a comment based on what I think as solidarity and commitment towards middle and working classes. I live and work in Greece, there is no intention to attack personally her. Still, language and arguments does not remind me of Labour in fact we have conservatives here that are more humane on possible actions to tackle inflation effects.
Labour: "We're going to do exactly what the Conservatives did, and hope for different results". Insanity.
Absolute nonsense on the wealth tax. They could increase capital gains tax in line with PAYE. It has nothing to do with someone earning a house in Peckham worth £800k. They think we are idiots and it makes me worry who are in Labours ear in terms of fiscal policy
No, it would fail. Cap Gains tax is easy to dodge. Only a Land Value Tax will address the right wealth.
They are bought and paid for just like the conservatives. 80% opposed my arse. They talk as if there's no such thing as a progressive rate and indeed treat you as if you were idiots and you have no alternative, the latter of which they may be right about. You are doomed either way.
this is correct Canada , NL and may others tax CG as earned (PAYE) income. These economies have grown faster than UK over last 20 years
💯👍 (Millionaires and billionaires, is who.)
Most cap gains in uk are property related. It will only pump the property prices up.
Reeves says we don't need higher taxes, indeed but this is somewhat disingenous, we can clearly raise some taxes whilst lowering others.
Whilst broader wealth taxes are largely innefective, as Martin Wolf has pointed out 60% of UK wealth is land value and that can be taxed without distorting the economy, even Tony Blair and George Osbourne have voiced support (always after they are out of power) , John McTiernan then says it's impossible to sell this to the public for this very reason, well that's just weak sauce.
What they probably fail to understand is the consequences of this failure to tax land wealth will be a major correction and economic recession likely after a peak 2026/7 (18.6 year cycle), coming right in the middle of the next parliament. Those homeowners will see a 20-30% drop in housing equity despite no tax on it, as well as all those pension funds and investments needing bailouts.
Labour's general YIMBYism and even the controversial CMO's are imo welcome (though I'd lay 60/40 odds they renege on the latter), but it will not stop land speculation driving prices higher, you cannot build at the margins faster than banks will issue credit, in fact the later stages of the cycle see prices rising with supply just as they did 2003-6, it is the distorted oversupply in some markets that leads to a bigger more prolongued bust.
100% agree.
Rachel's been in "annoying shouty voice" training
Awful isn’t it.
She must listen to Steve Write and Zoe Ball.
Rachel can do one! 😡
Manufacturing is dead. All so called growth comes from financial markets which produce money from nothing. There needs to be a govt that encourages investment in the UKs infrastructure and in real goods.
Which is exactly why we need wealth taxes, to disincentivise people just sitting on piles of property leveraged to the hilt. imagine those gains were heavily taxed - people would be more inclined to invest in business to grow wealth instead, driving business and productivity.
@@matthale5526 Agreed. May I propose calling it a tax on unearned income instead of a wealth tax. The later sounds punitive to some. The former is exactly what it is. A tax on income gained from assets, not work/labour.
@@matthale5526 Precisely.
@@matthale5526 couldn't agree more it's that simple, that is how to fix the economy
Without solving housing crisis, it is difficult to have any growth. Property is still the first option for investment. What growth can the society get through the increment of housing price? Housing absorbs way too much money.
Set up a land tax, so that owners of land and properties sitting idle are charged. Change tax laws so that money sitting idle is treated in a similar way. Those with more than say £10M should be taxed encouraging them to spend it rather than making fortunes from compound interest in a similar manner, the longer the money sits idle the more the millionaire class is charged. They would be encouraged to spend, invest in business and use their wealth rather than just sitting on it. That would be true trickle down economics.
She goes on about the highest tax burden since the war, but she is loathe to mention whom that falls upon though because that would mean acknowledging that some struggle more than others.
The ultra-rich have been absolutely raking it in over the past decade and beyond whereas the working and middle classes have been taxed more and more whilst having their social and public services cut to the bone.
I'm not in favour of making the average person pay more in taxes, but a tax on wealth and assets worth over say £1 million, plus getting rid of tax exemptions for non-domiciled individuals would go a long way to redressing some of the inequalities in our system.
Taxing housing wealth, what is that guy on!? Wealth tax would focus on £10M+ not ordinary people in Peckham
this is a bit of an obvious fix to the 800k peckham problem!
The wealth tax if properly designed can exempt any wealth under maybe £5M meaning those 80% he’s talking about would be non affected.
Taxing Capital Gains as a progressive tax like PAYE also will address much of the issue with many owning companies or getting bonuses from capital gains not paying any form of income tax. It’s not to take the rich when you look at similar economics like Canada they have grown much faster and taxing CG as PAYE definitely have help them by giving the government better financial room to do necessary work for the nation.
Inheritance tax should also have threshold of 10M.
the current tax burden falls most heavily on those on the bottom end of incomes. That is stifling the economy by taking yet more money out of the pockets of people who are most likely to spend what they earn. Introduce a wealth tax on those with soo much money they will never spend the vast majority of it and then you can use that money to cut taxes for the people who actually drive economic growth and productivity.
Precisely. The poor spend a higher proportion of their income on goods and services in the local economy.
This just isn’t remotely true. The poorest in society pay close to zero tax. The top 10% of earners (who are actually just normal people like lawyers, doctors, finance workers, business managers) prop up the tax take.
It’s frankly ridiculous that people still think the UK’s tax system is not progressive enough.
You must be kidding: top 10% earners pay more than half the taxes; bottom end incomes pay no taxes at all.
@@GiacomoSorbithis is true, though the top 10% find it easier to manage the tax level than those at the bottom.
💯👍
Here's the real problem.....and it can be easily fixed if the will is there.
Take the money out of politics, period. No more bought and sold polys. Stop the austerity policies and invest in the nation. If you can't deliver and quickly then don't apply.
💯👍
I am not left wing, but I feel sorry for them because basically your option is to vote for new labour or the tories (basically the same). In fact, this is the status quo
@@felixsmith5234💯 #VoteGreen 💚
I mean not the same new labour wasn't ideal. But unlike tory governance they where far more competent with public services and social policy lifting millions out of poverty. Not to mention the greater social progressism. By no means am I a new labour advocate it still wasn't nearly enough but it was way better than what we have now.
With infrastructure and public services literally crumbling around us, how on earth do Labour propse to improve all this without a soubd plan for the redistribution of wealth. Its utterly insain to rely on economic growth if your not investing in the infrastructure and services to allow growth to happen. Companies hording billions isn't helping anyone.
Keynesian tax and spend is the only answer.
rejecting a wealth tax is insane - most wealthy across the globe dodge taxes (hence the panama and pandora papers/leaks), this abuse of taxation basically breaks capitalism, and must be reformed - the only solution IS a global wealth tax, around 60% should be a good starting point - go, demand it, never settle or compromise, billionaires should be illegal and it is the duty of public servants to make it so, do it now
How will a global wealth tax even happen? Plus that just means your biggest tax payers and investors will just leave your country. How will you do that without massively shrinking your economy and making everyone poorer?
Global health tax is imperialistic. No thank you.
@@whodarboilebamnames3990Exit tax! Bernie Sanders has proposed one. 🙂
@@oneoflokis
#1 Putting exit taxes on individuals is akin to a ransom for having freedom of movement. You can't tax a right.
#2 Corporations will dip way before anything like that passes.
#3 This makes sure that you will get next to zero investment and skill immigration.
Overall silly idea, doesn't provide an actual answer to the problems I brought up, and on top of that guarantees economy shrinkage and decreased wealth for everyone who decided to stay.
@@whodarboilebamnames3990 Guess what?? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. And I'm sick of having to listen to COUNTLESS arguments by the rich (and their lackeys, and those who for no logical reason sympathise with them) about "why it won't work/isn't economic to tax the rich". Excuses, excuses! Now WHY don't I see/ hear arguments to the effect of: "It isn't economic/wont work to tax the poort "?? 😏 (Except from those who are Keynesian-inspired, who very correctly point out, that this latter practice takes TONS of money out of the economy, and actually wrecks businesses, especially those that serve the lower income percentiles... Current example being Wilko in the UK.) I'm tired of hearing apologetics for the rich. They can all do one!
But a wealth tax doesn't mean taxing the £800,000 house in Peckham. It doesn't even mean taxing the £5m house in Chelsea. It means taxing the £50m, £100m and £1bn estates that continue to accumulate and hoarde wealth. That is the money that will be buying the £800,000 house in Peckham when the working class family can't afford the council tax on it.
Imagine the major left wing party of any nation refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy even when wages, in real terms, have decreased over a 40 Yr period, when personal debt keeps increasing because wages just don't cover the bills, when disposable income has disappeared for millions causing thousands of businesses, reliant on it, going bankrupt. Food banks, higher rent, higher mortgages etc etc etc. What is the worth of that party even existing especially when the wealthy keep getting richer when people in work are getting poorer
#AllToriesOut #VoteGreen 💚
It’s not possible to imagine because it doesn’t happen anywhere else, the major left wing parties of other nations have tax increases as there main slogans and still they win office in many nations, because people aren’t stupid you need taxes to have high quality functioning society
Standard grandstanding. Said little…just usual promises with no actual meat on the bone.
Unless the mega rich and completely untaxed that own the UK are taxed properly, including proper tax unearned income etc the the lowest paid will continue to shoulder the tories imposed tax burden. It is not income tax that determined this but other taxes. ie my wife and I have been living off savings (because nobody will employ us for being over 60 and both with minor disabilities, ie 3 squished discs in my case) for the last 5 years. We live on circa £10Kpa between us, of which over 35% is tax, eg Council tax £2000 band C, car and petrol tax as we have no real public transport where we live, NI contributions, VAT etc. Both made redundant over a decade ago where non Dom CEOs were paid £millions into their tax havens and so on. Time for Labour to wake up, otherwise the effing tories will be back 5 years after the next election.
Because they think the status quo is acceptable, which most people can see is totally inadequate
For salary earners having a passive source of income is the best thing you could have, because aside the fact that it isn't always enough you could lose your job any day at any time, having something to fall back to is crucial, for me it is trading the crypto and stock market and yes I didn't have that much knowledge to begin to earn that's why I said passive income, I leave the profit making to the pro like my Advisor 'Margaret Johnson Arndt' , who has been doing a wonderful job.
Not at all, having monitored edge my portfolio performance which has made a jaw dropping $483k from just the past two quarters alone, I have learned why experienced traders make enormous returns from the seemingly unknown market. I must say it's the boldest decision I've taken since recently.
My financial advisor, '’Margaret Johnson Arndt, is a highly qualified and experienced professional in the financial market. She possesses a broad understanding of portfolio diversification and is recognized as an expert in this field.
" It doesn't mean our tax policy is going to be EXACTLY the same as the conservatives' "... oh, good. So only about 99% the same then? Thanks, Rach. Well in.
Even if they get in, Labour won't really have won this next election. It's just that the Tories will have lost. Just the same as the rest of us will lose out, with an alternative like this.
I caught that too. Such a collosal shame. To be fair, they are reflecting the general public and their selfish, horrendous attitudes. Brits don't know what's good for them - it's the only explanation for the likes of Boris. Frankly we don't deserve better as a community. I'm lost for ideas.
Recent poll in last few days showed 70 % against the Conservatives and 30% for Labour. Proves your point.
#AllToriesOut - red, blue or yellow! #VoteGreen 💚
Don’t wealth tax the primary home only second homes art etc i.e the multi millionaires, the billionaires and the like. Always the stupid argument that it has to hit normal people.
Is there a Part 2?? We did not hear from the woman in green because Rachel took off on auto-pilot.
So with the wealth tax, the poor still wouldnt be helped.
"Tax on wealth is tax on housing" lol wtf, that's your definition of it mate.
Generating groth. Creating stability, creating oportunities and jobs are nice buzzwords ...I didn't hear her saying one thing she plans to do.
You missed a 'w', but your point is a good one.
I think she just ignored the question completely,
Such ignorance about economics in the comments. Smh. Wealth taxes are incredibly heterodox.
This is just pure ridiculous... instead of considering to reduce income tax she just wants to keep her own bucks. Can´t believe that they´re that blatant about it. Anything she claims has nothing to do with a wealth tax. It has all to do with personal incentives for people not to work hard because they´re salami sliced away for every little effort taken. She´s doing the classical political move of talking about some popular political topics utterly unrelated to the topic of the impact of wealth taxes and blankly ignores why other policies would not be preferrable. Personally just think she tries to snitch some wealthy Tory donors...
"Because they're financially illiterate."
There, just saved you twelve minutes.
If Labour don't tackle the incredible transfer of wealth we have seen over the last 40 years then they;ll have no hope of fixing low growth. Access to cash for ordinary families and individuals has been reduced significantly, community funding has been cut to the bone. The NHS we all rely on so heavily is being dismantled before our eyes, people are sick and dying without adequate or safe health provision. Our birthrate is on the decline and we are relying in immigration (illegal or otherwise) to fill the gaps.
The tax system in this country is skewed in favour of the wealthiest, and we have to hope that trickle down will eventually work. It wont, it's a con.
Tackle wealth inequality, make the tax burden fairer, fix the NHS, give workers a better chance and your growth will come naturally. It really isn't rocket science and my 10 year old grandson could do the math.
Wake up please, Rachel.
Spot on! Nicholas Shaxson and several others have explained why she was spouting rubbish. She is a Big Finance stooge placed in Labour specifically to steer them away from any radical reform.
What a great political answer, we ahve the highest tax rate, meaning the working and middle class pay super high taxes as do the wealthy, and she doesn't want to introduce new taxes, even though the middle class can barely afford to pay taxes and the wealthy can easily afford to pay taxes, so the burden falls on the middle/working class in the name of someone not raising taxes. It's not about new taxes, it's about the burden, and she's saying I don't want ot change the burden to the wealthy, so we'll keep it on the middle class.
Exactly good point, it’s how the total tax burden is engineered that matter and it currently falls on the middle class unproportionally and re-engineering them is basically exactly what she says she will never do.
The United Kingdom is so funny, the way that the moderator and the politician attacked the protesters, so condescending as if there is the perfect for forum or opportunity for them to bring up the point they were trying to make.
Someone told me that Americans have more in common with the French than the English and the more I agree with that, tho we may have started like the french in terms of valuing personal freedom and revolution and write becoming more like the English on terms of creating class structures and admonishing any sign of resistance.
Rachel Reeves believes in trickle down economics 😅
she's not even that old and she's already a dinosaur 😆
@@lutherblissett9070RAWR... 🌋🦕🦖
Because they have ceased to be a labor party in essence.
I think a wealth tax is unworkable in this country.
You can tax assets and money created by wealth already we just choose not to, sadly Reeve has put down lifting the CGT rate an easy money created by money tax.
A suggestion I've heard is everyone pays a % of their property worth replacing council tax at the moment a person in Burnley pays 1.5% of their homes worth while someone in Mayfair pays 0.01%
You could set it at a national level of 0.5% and you generate as much additional income as a wealth tax would enough for a right wing government to cut income tax by 4p or a left wing government fix all the crumbling infrastructure and fund a Net zero program
"The highest tax burden" line pisses me right off. You do know, if you sufficiently raise taxes on the rich, you could, in fact, lower taxes on the poor, and maybe even the middle class?
All that stuff about growth too. Where's that growth going to come from?! This is exactly the "Magic Money Tree" people have been talking about for years. Higher taxes on the rich would be the financially, economically and morally responsible thing to do.
Wealth hoarding does nothing for the economy, and taking money from the wealthiest individuals and using it to fund public services such as Public Transport, Affordable housing, and mental health services would only increase the amount of disposable income that the majority of people in this country have, with the added benefit of making them more productive workers.
Add that to the fact that it would harness the political energy of the moment. We see "Anti-elite" sentiment on the rise with parties like Reform growing in the polls, and whilst I disagree with their assessment of the situation, the emotion that's driving that, this feeling of injustice and unfairness, is very real. Imagine how politically useful it would be if Labour could steal just a couple of percentage points of support from the Reform and Green parties.
There's no reason for Labour not to raise wealth taxes, aside from them being in the pocket of major corporations and wealthy individuals.
I'm so, so disappointed in them, and would rather not vote than vote for a flimsy, spineless party, that lost all sense of purpose over 20 years ago.
(Thankfully I can vote in Bristol, which means the Greens have a halfway decent shot)
Why? Because they are wealthy and are not a party for the working class anymore...
Labour and James Cleverly are ironically named!.
Labour want your money. They know the easy money is with workers. That's who they are going to go after. You have been warned.
I do not know what a wealth tax is or what it means. All you need to do is make the taxable profits a better system. Currently 19% on £50,000 or lower, 25% on £250,000 or more. I've been in business and owners of businesses DO EVERYTING THEY CAN TO AVOID PAYING TAXES!!!! £250,000 profit is not a lot. So I suggest we structure taxes on profits the same way we do on peoples income. So show some guts and charge profits of £500,000 at 28%, £1,000,000 32% etc. It is not difficult. But this fear that businesses might leave the country if we do that is nonsense. Actually, it would have been better if the EU had come to an agreement that every member would charge the same % so that corporates cannot escape paying what is due, when doing business in Europe. It still baffles me that the likes of Google, Starbucks etc escape the system. It is morally wrong. Just do it. They want to stay in Europe. It's a huge wealthy market!!
The EU tried to harmonise taxes repeatedly and the UK blocked it.
Redistributing wealth only leaves people complacent. Those who call for it would never agree to it if they had the wealth. It’s a policy for hypocrites.
She's been in opposition 30 years? What was she a Lib Dem during the Blair and Brown years?
These people rent labour, they don’t care about the supporters or the resin the LABOUR PARTY BEGUN - a party for the workers.
Waste of time, just waiting for them to change the name of Labour to something else.
This is deeply frustrating. The logic of her argument is that we can create more wealth and that will lift living standards; ie, those struggling will get some of that new wealth pie (mm, yummy). Leaving aside the problem that it’s notoriously difficult to lift growth rates in one’s economy, the argument holds within it a glaring misreading, or total omission, of the world since the Great Financial Crash. That is, any wealth that gets created now gets hoovered up by those who already own capital. We live in a world of rentier capitalism and “growth, growth, growth” by itself won’t change that.
This is made all the more annoying by her reply: “we have the highest tax burden since the second world war”. Yes! Precisely! ON WORKERS! Those who work pay huge taxes. Those with capital pay low or (if they’re really rich) no taxes.
I’ll try and illustrate why this is a problem and why Labour represent a very small change to the status quo. Let’s take their version of the Green New Deal (I haven’t paid attention to whether they’re calling it that - it’s weird when we borrow pieces of US history anyway). The state will fund, “without borrowing” (ie, from the workers paying the lion’s share of taxes), lots of new energy infrastructure (£28 billion per year by the end of the parliament). However, the state invests this money to ‘de-risk’ and ‘unlock private sector investment’. So, workers will subsidise those with Capital investing in new energy infrastructure which the worker will then pay for (again) through their energy bills as capital invested always needs a return on said investment (duh).
It all seems sensible until you think about the elephant in the room, that very fat 0.001% elephant that owns everything. If you don’t make an effort to try and make that elephant own less of everything then there isn’t a lot of pie (or leaves? What do elephants eat?) left to go around and the 99.999% will keep paying rents towards it as they progressively own less and less and less.
I’m not saying Corbyn was better. I’m not saying Labour don’t have some things right. I’m saying that a nation’s prosperity will not belong to its people if only a handful of people own all the wealth.
And before people say “oh yeah, tax the rich. I’m sure they’ll stick around”, I’d say they will. Or, rather, their stuff will. It’s hard to take some of the nation’s wealth (that house on Eton square, that data farm, those wind turbines, etc.) stick it in a bag and slink off to Bermuda.
And for those of you feeling uneasy because you have a large ISA and live mortgage free because you worked all your life to earn those things, I’d say: stop worrying, unclench, this isn’t about you! We would levy the tax on those with assets over 20 or 30 or 40 million pounds.
Also why stop there, who really needs more than £50m in assets? We could get over the PR disaster of a “wealth tax” and call it a wealth cap. Ie, no one can have more than £50m in assets within the UK.
That would free up a lot of stuff for others (you, unless you’re the Duke of Westminster) to own.
Imagine that, you could lay claim to an entire wind turbine blade! How fun!
Great explanation
Love it!
💯👍
The top 1% actually have a quarter of wealth in the UK according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report.
Meanwhile Germany has a of median wealth of under $62500 with a mean wealth of over $250000.
UK has a median of $141552 with a lower disparity between median wealth and mean wealth at $309375.
United States has a median of $93271 with a wide disparity between median wealth and mean wealth at $579,051.
These figures were available on Wikipedia under the title list of countries by wealth per adult.
That was quite meta, the protestors were interrupting the question they wanted.
Labour as a party has also been captured by wealth/corporate interests. They are merely tories dressed in red.
She believes in Adam Smith and yet missed a key tenant of his philosophy i.e. you need capital to invest to increase returns. Investment in the private and public sectors is at record low (see productivity crisis) ..we need to get that capital moving..and do that through progressive tax. Encourage business to invest not do share buybacks to increase dividends. Use it or lose it. This libertarian ultra free market approach has been a failure..for most of us.
💯👍
The system we have is nowhere near free markets/libertarian. What we have is crony capitalism.
Well, because they're wealthy. And their friends and family are wealthy. So of course they're against it.
How John McTernan can talk about mistrust in politicians in one breath and salute Sir Keir Starmer in another beggars belief, when the latter has reneged on so many policy pledges during his election as leader. As for Rachel Reeves, she seems sincere and Labour is lucky to have her, but I wonder if the rebuilding of public services will result in a wages binge rather than increased productivity required across the board.
Annual taxes on property are a wealth tax only worse. Either commercial or personal property.
"Labour doesn't deserve to win the election" - Rachel Reeves.
Oops!
Labour will have to put up taxes, no doubt at all. People are not as thick as it seems to think. Either the majority pay more or the rich are taxed more- time for them to pay their fair share. Nothing wrong with being rich per se although they don't need most of it to live in the lap of luxury but it does need to be fairly redistributed.
The rich pay more in VAT than you in income tax. So stop complaining.
@@theracer6882 False. Do not lie or if you do not know get your facts right. VAT is the most regressive form of taxation because the poor pay more proportionately. The rich can afford VAT far more easily but you probably knew this anyway.
Already paying 40% tax mate. combined with NI and rent, hardly anything left to save or invest. You guys are deluded if you think rich = 70,000£.
@@senanur1983 The richest in society pay the top rate on anything over £50,000 which you should know full well. Yes, anyone earning over £70,00 is comfortably in the top five percent of earners, so by definition they must be rich. The rich are not going to struggle to put bread on the table and pay bills. Nothing wrong with being rich as long as they pay their fair share. Whinge all you like; Britain is in such a parlous state caused by the greed of the rich for decades that Labour, if it wins the GE, is going to have to tax wealth more- the good news is they will still be rich but hopefully accepting when they see it is helping just a little to reduce the grotesque inequality the rich have engineered since 1979.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Not true, top five percent is somewhere around 150K if not more. But it's a joke anyway. The actual big fish are making that in a day and those people are paying close to nothing proportionally to others.
On-shore Windmills; if there is local opposition to the siting of structures, is Labour going to ignore that opposition?
Rachel Reeves, last time I remember, was also vice chair to Labour Friends of...Isr....hmmm...
McTernan needs to look over his own role in Labour’s fortunes. He was part of the team which, as former chief of staff to Jim Murphy, lost 40 out of 41 seats in Scotland to a party which positioned itself - as now - to the right. McTernan’s team obviously did catastrophically badly there in that unprecedented - and historic - electoral wipe-out in Scotland, with only one Labour candidate winning a seat (the openly anti-Trident politician, Ian Murray, MP for Edinburgh East).
Britain will return to superpower status when we start building houses on carparks. Very radical idea. I love it.
How are we going to grow the economy without increasing government spending?
its all over, this country is done, corrupt goverment and corruption in councils have destroyed this country.if i could afford it i`d be gone.
We need a wealth tax on the super-rich, people with a net worth above £10m
If we don't do this, wealth inequality will only get worse and young adults will never be able to buy a house and raise a family. The birth rate will decline and in the long run, the economy will end up looking like Argentina
Mean their are other mechanises much as higher income bands or making equal capital gains to income
Could raise the income tax threshold. Much of the world already has a birth rate crisis (UK included) and I won’t be surprised if we see incentives for young families in the next few years.
Yeah but didn’t you hear John’s argument against taxing multi-millionaires?
Someone in Peckham might have a house worth £800k.
(Yeah, I don’t know what that’s got to do with taxing people worth ten or a hundred times that either).
Reeves meanwhile wants to point out that the tax burden is the highest it’s ever been, but forgets to point out that’s only if you’re working class without assets.
A wealth tax wouldn't touch people in Peckham with a house worth £800k, I'm advocating for a wealth tax on the Super-Rich, net worth above £10m@@ActuallyJamesS
Extraordinary level of cynicism and hopelessness in the comments on this video about the prospect of a Labour government and Rachel Reeves as its chancellor!
Indeed. The comments are sadly demonstrative of the kind of lazy and simplistic analysis that has led the UK into its current quagmire. Very disappointing.
But then Rachel Reeves will be useless... To the ordinary person... So...
Im a Labour voter and therefore cannot vote conservative, yet i hear no tangible information on how Rachel will achieve growth, how much investment? How will it be implemented? How will it be funded? Don’t tell me she’ll hire a management consultant at a cost of millions to give her the same plan as we’re already on.
Dear God, the questioner is beyond irritating
People who are worth a few million in the UK from inheriting property are not rich. These are not the people it would tax. it's the ones that have multi millions in property and other equities.
Who needs Tories and Liberals when Labour will do their bidding?
Many are on the minimum wage - as such even if taxes were 100%, not so much tax revenue would be collected.
People will pay for some or all services if they have the money to do so. Food isn't free in UK (USA has food stamps) and most people pay more for food than they do on education or health.
The social structure in UK makes it difficult for large numbers to take advantage of the financial opportunities that exist in the world.
One day i’ll be rich enough to vote Tory :)
They’ve somehow made it impossible
Yip, based on this that will be your only chance
@@TimesFM4532 Indeed. Blink and we have a minister that’s been replaced somewhere. It’s a clown show.
This man run away from this woman and look for another wife quickly
How is Labour going to turn around public services within one year if not be getting unions to halt their militancy and obstructionism?
They have to tax the Rich wealth inequality is just disgusting . The poor are taxed way too much.
Pretty simple question to answer, it’s because they’re wealthy! They don’t want to pay any tax on the assets they own, like the investment properties so many MP’s own 👀
She did not explain why she rejects a wealth tax. Just said “no new taxes”. No distinction between types of tax made. Right now workers pay through the nose and owners pay less or nothing.
I suspect she is against a wealth tax because she wants to rule with the permission of the super rich so they don’t use their media machine against her.
Have no idea how these people can justify austerity in practically glowing terms and call themselves Labour. They're a sham; but hopefully once labour gets in the public can focus on improving the party.
@@Jomchen💯
💯👍 #VoteGreen 💚
@@oneoflokis not sure. Their stance on using animals in scientific research was absurd last time I looked.
@@charlespirate1 Don't think I've seen their experimenting on animals policy! But I do know that large sections of their manifesto are way more socialistic, than anything Labour is currently proposing. Or has been proposing, since Keith Starver got in! 😏 The Greens seem to have taken inspiration from Labour's 2017 manifesto, and added to it.
Labour are Tory mark 2
I sure hope John McTernan is right and Rachel Reeves doesnt believe her own words...
Im broadly supportive of what Starmer is trying to do, but that answer from Reeves seemed horrendous. Unless someone can explain to me how exactly a wealth tax is actually anti growth? It doesnt affect the conduct of business, doesnt increase the cost of investment for hungry, ambitious entrepreneurs, doesnt discourage large multinationals from investing.... so how?
As McTernon said, it'll mainly be a tax on property ownership. Which is politically sensitive I know, and we probably dont want a massive housing market crash... and yet everyone knows those property values are massively inflated, keeping the youger generations locked out of their own opportunity for stability and investment, and essentially locking away a large portion of our nations wealth in an inflated bubble of non-liquid assets that dont contribute to actual growth or a healthy economy.
So as far as I can tell, the best reason for Labour not to support a wealth tax is because they want power and the tax is politically risky. I can accept that, but I struggle to believe what Reeves was saying.
Also, I'm (maybe clearly) not an economist or student of economics. If someone who knows better would like to correct me, im all ears.
And this is why labour is no better than the tories. She does not answer the question. We should be taxing wealth instead of income
This is why I won’t be voting labour .
Wealth tax have been done in the Nordics with catastrophic results. Many of the capitalists left and never came back. It took a while but they finally understood that taxing capital gains and dividends the same as PAYE is the only way to make it sustainable and also foster growth at the same time.
The system is sustainable it’s just that not everyone benefits equally. But if everyone did benefit equally it would not be sustainable 🤷♂️
They keep going on about how we need growth but have so far said nothing about how they will achieve that... Austerity is why growth has been low.
those twerps irritated me, but also I totally agree with them
Labour are also pro brexit, which they know is terrible for ordinary people.
Its failure to call out the egregious impact of Brexit is a disgraceful dereliction of duty. Shameful and history will record this.
They're not pro Brexit, Starmer simply doesn't have a spine and is affraid he'll upset part of the electorate.
If a Labour government is going to build more pylons than we have seen before, how will that work be funded?
The business cycle always has its way.
Because they are tories.
Because wealthy people are now funding Labour.
Am I wrong on that if I express that when it comes to tax it is always a question of getting others to pay and preferably a minority? If you accept that the economy works like a machine where incentives are a significant driving force, you must not fail to ask yourself in connection with new initiatives "And so what?". Why isn't the debate more about creating a structure that works for the whole and accept people as individuals are different? A challenge with such a complex issue as tax is that you have to experiment and give the population the opportunity to vote with their feet. This kind of experimentation is largely absent in all European countries but one. I know of a country where this is practiced. It is Switzerland as a confederation where there is real competition with the cantons in terms of how to govern and how to tax. That is individual freedom.
Ugh. Should've known it'd just be politician bluster and deflection and not an actual explanation. And "We don't need any more tax revenue" is pretty controversial to start with, but a wealth tax is not necessarily a way to raise more overall tax revenue, it could allow for income tax to be alleviated.
I actually wanted her to present her argument against it - is it because rich people will pull resources out of the UK, or because it would lose favour with owners of media outlets, or some other aspect?
7:00 what about the debt and the interest rates payments?
Labour under Keir Starmer is just Tories with a red tie
I call them "Tory Light"
#AllToriesOut
Taxes aren't covering public services (6.54) as they're talking about income tax. The wealthy (those with £10M and above) don't pay income tax, they barely pay any tax. Forcing them to spend their money in a time frame, or setting up a land tax or an sset tax would enable the government to collect more taxes without any 'punitive' measures to the weathy. They would still make money just 1% less. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise!) A 1% tax on those with £10M or above would bring in £80 billion...
We need a charge but not sure about Labour, but need to be more good government and reform.
The taxes in the UK are insane.
All she does is lie and blame the Tories! sounds like same old labour to me, give with one hand and take back in stealth taxes with the other!
The Labor Party is now a labor party - it's a party of the wealthy and powerful. Mouthing off about economics - she never said a word about economic justice - I suspect there, like here in the US, the wealthiest are taxed at rates below the average working person. You see they have a lot of ways of gaining wealth without it being called income. It's stunning really, to hear her mouth off exactly the way wealth democrats and conservative talk here in the US.
High growth without taxing anyone? Why did no one think of this before? Oh, wait, Liz Truss tried that and it doesn't work.
Working class with £800k in the bank okay mate