Ah yes, the tories: the party of fiscal responsibility and low taxes.
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
34 points (97.2% liked)
United Kingdom
4068 readers
271 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It’s just cynical reality. They talk about being anti state to their mates, but when it comes down to it they don’t mind tax and spend in the slightest because it keeps them in power. When faced with a competitive offer, for example Labour is fundamentally built on aspects of wealth redistribution, and when those ideas become popular they will offer them as well. The last thing they will tolerate is not being in power, their objective is you have whatever you want as long as they are in charge. Which is to say, private school educated Etonian offspring of vast empires of unearned wealth. These ghouls basically don’t have any strings to their bow apart from knowing how to handle power and keep hold of it.
You're confusing US republicans with British Tories. No British Tory is anti state. They're conservatives for a reason.
that is exactly what I said, although im not sure why you mention the US
As someone who hates the Tories, this is total bullshit reporting, actually. The £3,500 a year figure comes from “an additional £100bn a year for the exchequer – the equivalent to about £3,500 more per household”, but where is that additional £100bn coming from?
A “rise in corporation tax from 19% to 25%, the energy profits levy and the freezing of various income tax and national insurance thresholds.”
Ah yes, “various income tax rates”, that’s definitely not a reference to the top rate of income tax… which is £125k. Fuck off. I don’t give a shit about people earning that much having to pay more tax.
Fuck the Tories, they’re looting the whole country. But this is total nonsense.
Stating you hate the Tories then come out with an opinion to try and promote them. Your last post said
Oh, and for all you “vote the Tories out, get a labour government” fantasists:
It is like you are saying I hate the Tories as a deflection from the fact you want to denigrate anyone speaking against them.
As for your comments here:
The windfall profits levy is expected to be £5b. I could argue this is government figure, so optimism is key here.
Corporation tax from 2019 year end is £63.2b
Corporation tax from 2023 year end £84.7b
Which is a rise of ~~£21.6b~~ £26.5, this leaves £73.5b in extra tax receipts since 2019. That is still a massive amount. If we assume that the £3500 per household is correct for the total amount, then with the new amount it is still £2572.5 per household, that is without corporation tax and windfall levies. Which is still £172.5 higher than the Tories said we would get if we were stupid enough to vote for Corbyn.
And for icing on the cake, Corporation taxes have actually decreased under the Tories from 28% in 2011, 24% in 2012, 23% in 2013, 21% in 2015, 20% in 2016 and 19% in 2018. The last 5 years have been the lowest rate for corporation taxes in at least the last 60 years. More proof that the burden of finances the country is falling on the poorer people in the UK.
EDIT: Corrected the error in the sums.
Take one look at anything I have ever written on Lemmy and you’ll see that I am by no means a defender of the Tories. Speak against them all you want, I’ll not defend them, but I also won’t abide the media sharing pro-industry, pro-capitalist think-tank bullshit, which is exactly what this is - a think tank that wants the Tories to tax the wealthy even less than they currently are.
And for icing on the cake, Corporation taxes have actually decreased under the Tories from 28% in 2011
Yes, it was dropping until the relatively recent announcement that they’re increasing it to 25% for companies that earn over 250k. That’s one of the reasons why this think tank is complaining about increases of corporation tax costing households money.
the new amount it is still £2744 per household
Except it’s not. It’s £0 per household, because corporations and fossil fuel companies aren’t households. If I instituted a wealth tax on billionaires and raised £282 billion with it, that’s not costing households £10,000 each is it?
The Tories deserve tonnes of criticism about hundreds and hundreds of things they’ve done. But increasing corporation tax and the concept of a fossil fuel industry levy (as much of a total scam that the implementation is) aren’t among those issues.
Except it’s not. It’s £0 per household, because corporations and fossil fuel companies aren’t households. If I instituted a wealth tax on billionaires and raised £282 billion with it, that’s not costing households £10,000 each is it?
This is after taking corporation tax and windfall away from the total £100b (100b-21.6=78.4b). Read it again.
Yeah, misread your comment, sorry!
Your numbers are a wee bit off, but close enough - my calcs give £27bn corp tax rather than £21.6 (remember they’re increasing it this tax year to 25% from 19%).
It’s irrelevant anyways. The windfall tax is all just propaganda to mitigate criticism of the fossil fuel industry. I don’t want to defend the Tories at all, I agree with you that they’re taxing the working class greater for the benefit of the wealthy. But that isn’t what the article is saying, and that’s why I’m annoyed at the article. The article is bullshit not because it criticises the Tories, the article is bullshit because it’s complaining about the wrong things! They mention three conservative government policies which they claim are causing harm to us, and of those three policies, two and a half of them are things we should be pushing for MORE of. (Higher corporation tax, taxes on the fossil fuel industry, higher income tax for people with high incomes). Those policies are bad because they don’t go far enough.
Your numbers are a wee bit off,
Hands up, you are correct. I edited the post with correct figures.
They mention three conservative government policies which they claim are causing harm to us
I think you are reading an interpretation that is not there. They do not claim any policy is harming us. They state the facts of where the largest tax rises are coming from which is very near the wording of the report. The actual IFS report is here.
The guardian states the report is damaging because of the conference next week. It is trying to stir up anxiety among Tory party members, but it does not cast aspersions over which tax increases are good or bad.
I agree the windfall tax is just a sham. I would be very surprised if we see any receipts at all. They built huge cop out options into the bill. Shell have declared a reduction in investment because of the windfall tax while only paying £134m to the government from a worldwide £40b profit. The whole process is nothing more than a façade.
“Causing harm to us” was my short-hand interpretation - I’m just a guy writing internet comments, they don’t have to be perfect - but I don’t think it’s an unfair reading of the article.
Acting like their analysis is unfeeling and unpolitical is classic IFS bullshit. Raising corporation tax, energy profit levy and top rate income tax are all good things and you want me to complain about it just because the Tories are doing it? Is tribalism more important than policy?
I’d call out this crap regardless of who’s in power because it’s just typical neoliberal “taxes are always bad” bullshit. Tax the shit out of corporations and the wealthy, please.
I don't think they are saying the taxes are bad. Every media report will have a bias. The best place to recognise that bias is to follow the money trail. And if you look to the bottom of the report, it was commissioned by ESRC and the Nuffield foundation. The ESRC are independent and rarely get involved in the subject of reports. Nuffield are an independent body usually recognised for reporting on the NHS. The IFS only create the report, they have not chosen the subject matter.
The timing and content of the report is clearly aimed at the Tory conference with the intent of highlighting just how badly the country is performing.
I don’t think they are saying the taxes are bad
Come on, stop arguing that black is white. The article calls the report damaging and even you said that it highlights how badly the country is performing. The article very clearly has the message of “isn’t it bad how much the Tories have raised taxes?”
Why are you like, arguing about this? I don’t really understand.
There are biases beyond who funds the report. Neoliberalism is biased against taxes, economists are overwhelmingly neoliberal and the think-tank is a group of economists. It’s not that complex, really.
Ah yes, “various income tax rates”, that’s definitely not a reference to the top rate of income tax… which is £125k. Fuck off. I don’t give a shit about people earning that much having to pay more tax.
Thresholds, not rates. And, as you'd expect, freezing them hits the poorest the hardest.
The effect of freezing tax thresholds:
The combined impact of headline tax changes, policy roll-outs and frozen taxes and benefits by 2025–26 is broadly regressive, with the poorest seeing income falls of 2.8% of income and the richest falls of only 1.1%. Headline cuts to income tax and National Insurance will benefit higher-income households who are more likely to get more of their income from employment, while the poorest tenth of households will gain only £13 per year from these measures. Because some tax thresholds and – especially – benefits values are indefinitely frozen, the impact of freezes only grows over time. As a result, by 2030–31 the total changes to the tax and benefit system are more clearly regressive, with the highest-income tenth seeing a 1.3% fall in income and the lowest-income tenth a 4.7% fall.
I absolutely 100% agree with you that the Tories are stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. But the article isn’t about personal allowance. If you click on the link I referenced in the original post, it takes you to an article about higher rate tax-payers. I don’t think any of us should give a shit about higher rate tax payers, and I’m not going to apologise for holding that opinion.
I’m responding to the article as it stands. Obviously the Tories aren’t good for the country economically, I think that’s self-evident, but the article is extremely misleading.
About £30 billion comes from freezing tax thresholds. Those affect everybody across the board because we all get the same thresholds.
You quoted the article accurately but then misstated what it said.
Phil Moorhouse does a good break down on this one. He points out that the Tories were elected by using the fear factor over Corbyn. Part of that was stating that Corbyn would raise taxes by £2400. I wouldn't mind that extra £1100 per year in my back pocket now.
Oh, and for all you “vote the Tories out, get a labour government” fantasists: “the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has ruled out introducing a wealth tax or putting up the top rate of income tax”
Labour aren’t worth your vote. We need to make our own political change now.
You don't always vote for what you want under FPTP. It is fairly evident through polls that most want PR voting. Until that happens you vote for what is tactically best for you.
Labour aren’t worth your vote. We need to make our own political change now.
What are my options when the most important thing for me at the next election is remove this corrupt group from office?
Your option is to get involved with direct action and mutual aid in your area. You can’t vote corruption out of power. Corruption basically is power. Vote for the least worst option, sure, but we need to do more. And I’m not talking about peaceful protest.
Because of FPTP direct action is totally ignored in the UK unless it has a bearing in the swing seat areas.
I get very annoyed at green protesters getting themselves locked up to gain attention. MPs do not give a rat's arse. The Tories used their actions to stimy other protests with laws. Most people want to push for net zero with their protests.
We really need that PR voting system and a change in our education system. People need to understand critical thinking and how to find factual evidence. This should be done at school level imo. Above all else is PR voting. FPTP is far too easy to manipulate, which is why we have a two party state.
No, you’re not getting this, I’m guessing you don’t understand what I mean by direct action. I’m not saying that direct action will impact elections. I’m saying that elections aren’t the way we’ll change the system.
Elections are just smoke and mirrors to manufacture your consent and to make you compliant. When I say “get involved with direct action”, I don’t mean go campaigning for a better political party, I mean creating an alternative before tearing the state down.
Like PR voting?
No. Nothing to do with voting. Just forget that voting exists. Imagine that the politicians are unelected. How would you go about changing the system in that scenario? That’s how you need to be thinking, because that’s essentially the situation that we’re in.
No elections just means a dictatorship. Who would get to decide who runs the country.
No, it doesn’t, that’s a very narrow perspective - I’m guessing that you’re quite young and you’re not familiar with alternative systems of organising society.
There are many alternatives, but I like the idea of consensus based decision-making. It’s a little bit like direct democracy - instead of voting for people to represent you, instead you directly get to support or block decisions made about the society you live in.
For example, currently, we elect politicians to represent us, and we try to elect a politician who would solve climate change. But that doesn’t seem to work. Imagine if, instead, we could all directly vote on an idea - whether or not we should end fossil fuel subsidies, for example? That’s direct democracy, but it gets rid of electoral politics. For full context, I don’t support that kind of direct democracy, but there are countless alternatives to representative democracy, I just wanted to share one which was simple and easy to explain.
I’m guessing that you’re quite young
This made me smile. It infers naivety is present when clearly it is not.
Now that you have gave it a name I know exactly what you mean. Switzerland are the most prominent that I knew who use direct democracy. Full list here.
I think we need to agree to disagree on that one. I am not in favour of direct democracy because it relies on the people being educated on all issues. Brexit showing just how bad an issue can go.
I don't know enough about the different STV systems to favour one over the other. Wales has adopted STV. Mark Drakeford speaks highly of it, but I do not understand if it is fully protected against manipulation as FPTP is. I favour a PR voting system, while keeping an open mind on STV. I dread that Labour may look at STV over PR. Simply because you will not know just how corruptible it is until someone does it.
I literally just said I’m not talking about direct democracy. It was just an example of an alternative, and one that I specifically said I didn’t support.
All cards on the table, since you’re trying to understand my position, I’m a libertarian socialist. I support the abolition of money, the police, prisons, social classes, states and all unjustified hierarchies. I believe that power ultimately corrupts anyone who wields it and the only solution is to abolish all forms of power as far as is possible.
I think a good way to structure society would be groups of approximately 50-150 people (but absolutely no more than 200) represented by someone in their community in a council of delegates where decisions are made. The representative would not make decisions on behalf of their community but rather would act as a liaison between the community and the larger council. Proposals made at meetings of the council would be brought back to the communities to be discussed and for consensus to be built and a decision to be reached (or for a request for more information / clarification) and then that feedback would be brought to the council, where the delegates would share the feedback/decisions made by their community and they would make amends to the proposal to make it work. The barrier for approval for a proposal to be accepted would be high - something like 90% but certainly no lower than 75% - meaning that true consensus has to be reached, rather than a tyranny of the majority.
This is the model used by some cool groups such as workers/housing co-operatives, and I think it would work well for larger societies. Maybe it’s been used by large societies, I honestly don’t know.
Your best bet it's voting against the worst party. That's FPTP. Until that's gone there's little point in voting for the party you actually want.
Whether we have PR or not doesn’t matter, we cannot turn a system against itself. A political party disruptive to the status quo would not be allowed to gain power. Party politics will not save us. We need bold action that goes far beyond voting.
What do you suggest? And what do you suggest should come after?
I suggest joining the IWW, getting involved in direct action and mutual aid and working within your communities to build alternative structures. Start or join a housing co-op or a workers co-op (or both), try to make changes to your living situation which make you more self-sufficient (growing your own food, getting solar panels) and just being helpful, generous and kind.
I think what should come after is a world where people work together to provide everyone with what they need without any abusive structures of power.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a damaging report for Rishi Sunak as the Tory party faces growing internal divisions over the issue, the thinktank said tax revenue was on track to amount to about 37% of national income in 2024, up from about 33% four years ago.
In analysis that is likely to stoke fresh Tory infighting, the IFS said no parliament had presided over a bigger increase in taxes than the current one – led by three Conservative prime ministers – on records dating back to 1951.
Under Keir Starmer, Labour has seized on rising tax levels as evidence of the Tories’ failure to grow the economy, arguing the government is in a bind of its own making, as sluggish economic growth brings in less income for the exchequer to fund public services.
In separate research published on Friday, a report from the Resolution Foundation thinktank and the innovation charity Nesta’s UK 2040 Options programme warned stark wealth inequalities were holding Britain back.
Ben Zaranko, a senior research economist at IFS, said that while high by historical standards, the UK’s tax take as a share of national income was still “fairly middling” compared with other developed countries.
A spokesperson for the Treasury said that “despite needing to take the difficult decisions to restore public finances” after the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK’s ratio of tax to gross domestic product would still remain lower than any major European economy.
The original article contains 810 words, the summary contains 239 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ah hey this sounds fine! I mean it’s only the plebs who will suffer. They’re only like, 95% of the country and (checks notes) the spine and meat of the entire economy. What’s the problem?