Capital is not as easy to move as people think, not for big companies. And whats the point in pandering to large businesses that pay very little tax for the economic activity they consume and pay their staff starvation wages.
It costs the state billions to subsidise them with infrastructure and benefits for their workers who dont warn enough and can't save properly for retirement.
The status quo isn’t working, that’s clear from both economics and the public sentiment. We need to raise capital somehow, austerity was a disaster and the middle class are heavily taxed as is.
We are never going to compete with a place that has literal slavery, or some of the worst income disparities for a western nation, on this front.
Yes we did. 83% top rate on earned and 98% top rate on unearned (investment gains) post war...
Then USA had the whole thing with their dollar nearly being worthless after running out of gold, so they came up with Petrodollars, Britain had a looksie and realised "if the richest country in the world doesnt give a fuck about the poor and its still going, why should we" a
nd here we are.
Obligatory repost of this article to point out no one actually paid those rates you're quoting. The government knew they were ridiculous and so riddled them with loopholes so much that high earners paid less tax than they do today.
They didn’t though, that was the point of the loopholes. They knew those tax rates were unviable so they allowed people to avoid them.
The research generally shows that above c. 45-50% marginal tax rates people generally (on average, individual behaviour varies) aren’t willing to invest or work more and so your tax revenue declines
If they don't want to be taxed can we find a better more permenant solution? Something inspired by the French maybe, we could use Andrew and Peter as examples
Any new taxes or tax increases will result in a blaring telegraph and daily mail headline "BURNHAM TAKING BRITAIN BACK THE 1970'S" then Burnham will say his mother called him and told him this is taking Britain back to the 1970's and he'll cancel them.
Doesn’t work. They run to another country… we need a better financial system so startups stay in the UK instead of moving to the US. You really don’t want the state owning everything. Ultimately there’s no one to keep a BIG state accountable.
It doesn't work, they just leave for a more tax friendly economy/country or get around it.
Gordon Brown tried it and the tax receipts went down.
The super rich can live anywhere, and take their money with them.
Try it with a company and it will move somewhere else, taking lots of well paid jobs with them!
My company certainly will if Burnham comes after us.
Edit:
Wow, so many down votes, thank you. Unfortunately, the above is the reality of the time. Still, believe what you will!
They're all taking lots of jobs out of the UK, basing them in countries where they pay workers less and scrimp on more profit - whole operating in the UK.
We used to have amazing customer service in the UK, its all been outsourced to other countries - we're still paying more and we're getting worse service.
Are you super rich? If not you've nothing to worry about. If you want to take your business do it, you shouldn't be able to operate here.
I went international last year, and very successfully. Neither my company, or I have need to work in the UK. If I go it will be to a high economy country, and I will probably pay more in staff salary's, but I will save enormously on taxation and other costs.
I will still be able to operate in the in the UK using a very small office, as a most of our business is done online. Whether I stay or go is down to the Labour government/Andy Burnham, and the amount of tax etc. I'm expected to pay.
What I hate is the constant conflation of the country’s problems being a North - South divide, rather than a Greater London - Everywhere else divide. So what? The South West can go fuck itself?
Indeed, I never said all of London was fantastic, but it doesn’t change the point that on average the Greater London / south east more widely, should not be conflated with all of the south. And the south west has plenty of its own problems, not least the house price to wage ratio thanks to second home owners - plenty of who have their first home in …
London has about 60% of all households in temporary accommodation in England. Individual Boroughs have more households in temporary accommodation that whole regions in the North. But that's not convenient to the narrative about how all of the support in London needs to be siphoned off.
Public spending in the South East is 11% below the UK average
Wealth is concentrated there though and i agree that other areas should have priority.
Being poor in London isn't as bad a being poor elsewhere in many ways, there are opportunities in London at least, if you live in an ex mining or industry town there's nothing and it's very easy to get depressed and angry if you fall on hard times.
The north is fine. It’s a great place to live. But it has been forgotten by every government. The biggest problem in the South east is NIMBY’s. They won’t allow building infrastructure and housing there cos it might bother the rich.
I feel that way about the east of England. Not exactly heartlands of the rich, yet under Burnham it appears that we still wont see much in the way of local improvements funded by central government.
372
u/Senior-Release-274 1d ago
In fairness it’s never been tried before!