An election looms, so I think it is time to look at all the success over the 13 years that we have witnessed from the government.

^ I was drawing on the fact that Labour has the same 'Fiscal Rule' 'Reeves" as Torries. And to be aware Starmer won't change much.^

I'm aware of that, too, Grany and it saddens me. But until more of the electorate is aware that state spending comes before taxation (and that state spending benefits the economy) Labour are always going to be open to accusations of irresponsible spending plans and the electorate believing that their spending plans are going to bankrupt the country.

I wish I'd learn to preview before pressing 'send' 😣

Germanshepherdsmum

That would be good for investment wouldn’t it?

Well, how else would you properly tax people who buy shares just to speculate with, not to capitalise a new company?

I don’t consider that they are not properly taxed. Your proposal would end investment in companies by purchase of shares at a stroke.

While I don't agree with the rest of Grany's post, DAR, Prem Sikka is right about the tax system favouring the rich. Our whole neoliberal economy favours the rich.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t consider that they are not properly taxed. Your proposal would end investment in companies by purchase of shares at a stroke.

Oh, come on, GSM. You know as well as I do that if you purchase the shares of an existing company ,unless they are a new share issue, the money you pay for them goes to the person who sells them to you, not to the company at all. They're just another commodity to be bought and sold. And the dividend income from them is treated more advantageously than earned income.

Many of the rich are employers upon whom others rely. It’s a crime to be ‘rich’ it seems, whatever ‘rich’ means.

Oh, what a forelock tugger you are, GSM.

If they didn't have an employees and people to buy their products they wouldn't be rich. I'm at a loss to see how they should be treated any differently for tax purposes.

Germanshepherdsmum

The speculator is self employed and should pay the appropriate NIC, and also income tax on dividends (ok, the rate is low to encourage investment). No NIC, no free health care, state pension or other benefits,

My worry about Grany's sources is that their level of truth seems to be equal to Trump's.

As for tax reform, I wouldn't be surprised to find a good proportion of Conservatives think it is time our tax system was simplified.

Let's take grany's example of a speculator. If this was his only income, and knowing, thanks to GSM, that he could well be paying NI, his only concern, as is that of the PAYE worker, is that they pay the least tax required of their income.

With a simplified system where each income is taxed equally, and the system is fully progressive, they might both be paying less.

Add to that the fact that the best way to keep people honest is to keep things simple, and you could be on to a winner.

Being a forelock tugger surely means you consider yourself inferior Maizie. I’m not in that camp.

How exactly are ‘rich’ people treated differently for tax purposes? We have different rates of income tax according to level of earnings (and in the case of dividends type of earnings). What you really mean is that in your opinion they aren’t treated differently enough. You want to hear the pips squeak.

Germanshepherdsmum

Many of the rich are employers upon whom others rely. It’s a crime to be ‘rich’ it seems, whatever ‘rich’ means.

It is not a crime to be "rich"; no one is saying it is. That is just an attempt at distraction.

We can argue, however, that it is morally wrong to pay less tax than someone earning the same amount in a different way. It is morally wrong to pay less tax than someone having a lower income. It is not about being "rich". It is about the immoral distribution of wealth and how that wealth was obtained.

Gone are the days, GSM, when someone can stand up and say, "What I take by force I keep". Manipulating the tax system to ensure that those, who have always managed to pay less tax on a greater income, thus hanging on to that additional income when those on a lower incomes can't, is the modern way of taking by force. It is no more moral now than when done with armies and murder.

I’ll just carry on being immoral then.

You do like to deliberately misread and stir GSM. Nobody said people, you or anyone else, was immoral. It is the system that is.

Is that really the only way you can find to counter what I suggested?

I don't think more of the electorate needs to be "aware" that state spending comes before taxation Maisie. It is more the case that you require them to be aware of your belief for it to gain traction.

What you are trying to convince people of - not even prove- is where an economic cycle starts. When the MMT crowd convince their peers, then I am sure we will listen.

I would rather learn more about the circular economy - reduce, reuse, and recycle - already being used in some countries - than be constantly made aware of my failing to please you by grasping MMT, which is still a linear economy, wherever you and the boys in the gang wish to see it start or finish.

I get that this is because I am more Teal than Red (although on the muddy side of teal), but that's who I am. Just as neither you nor I will convince GSM of the validity of a much narrower version of wealth inequality neither, I fear, will you convince the country of spending before tax is budgeted. Many will fear the idea that money creation comes first.

DAR, I’m really not interested in countering your suggestions. I’m not interested in an argument. My husband and I have both paid shedloads of tax and now my son and daughter in law are doing so. But for some people it will never be enough.

Germanshepherdsmum

*DAR*, I’m really not interested in countering your suggestions. I’m not interested in an argument. My husband and I have both paid shedloads of tax and now my son and daughter in law are doing so. But for some people it will never be enough.

No being interested is okay but it doesn't usually lead to a twisting of the truth.

Have fun with those tax returns

We pay an accountant to do that.

If we are stuck on who counts as being 'rich', I would start by saying Amazon, and all the other lowly taxed mega companies are 'rich', and that their tax levels must be re-calculated.
Yes, varian, a good summary.

Being a forelock tugger surely means you consider yourself inferior Maizie. I’m not in that camp.

What a strange assumption.

Why would you tug your forelock save as a sign of subservience to people you consider your superiors?

Germanshepherdsmum

We pay an accountant to do that.

I do wonder why you feel the need to point that out.

Just so you know I don’t have all the fun.

And it’s what people of the type you don’t like do. Helps the economy though,

Germanshepherdsmum

Just so you know I don’t have all the fun.

Germanshepherdsmum

Why would you tug your forelock save as a sign of subservience to people you consider your superiors?

Do you not understand English?

Try reading my post again.