If there is an election.....

varian I've never been able to understand why leavers are not willing to hold a second referendum; after all, if they're right, sure ly they would still get the result they want???

Difficult times but not so difficult for me. I would keep well away from Labour and Mr. John McDonnell who will apply the theories of the French economist Thomas Picketty i.e. everybody is taxed at 60% on their ESTATE not their income. All other countries worldwide have rejected the theory but J McDonnell is ready to have a go at it. Scary!

As I understand it the next ploy is for the Johnson Party to put up a vote of no confidence in themselves ( a one-lined Bill). This only requires a simple majority, not the two-thirds under the fixed-term parliament, although I am really not sure why (or if I have got this right.)

Parliament is prorogued at the end of next week (14 October) and it sounds like he needs to do it just before Friday. I assume it has to go to the Lords - or not?

Is that right? If so what plans do the Rebel Alliance have? I tried to follow at lunch-time couldn't see what could be done although it sounded as if something could.

Help!

They could all vote confidence in him.

As a matter of interest nanou why do you object to people being taxed on their estate rather than their income? Some people earn more from interest on their estate than others could ever earn from income. When that estate is passed on to subsequent generations, it is unearned income and inequality increases.

But 'estate' in this context means capital assets - and that includes our houses.

I know. An exception could easily be made for a main residence during a person's lifetime.

Hi growstuff, Monica
Yes capital assets include significant pieces of property such as homes, cars, investment properties, stocks, bonds. I would object mainly because the main residence is included, which has been paid for at great expenses. We pay taxes all our life (fair enough) but this system of taxation feel like punitive taxes. Remember Harold Wilson and his disastrous economic policies.
I don't think there will be any exception - houses and others- under McDonnell.
Thanks for your thoughts, always interesting.

Day6 ??Exactly.
Thankfully I don’t rely on Gransnet for all my reading.?

Has McDonnell given any details? He's not even in government, so I doubt very much if any policy to tax wealth has any details attached? Is this just scare-mongering?

Have you read Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century?

Some people make more money from investing wealthy (in some cases inherited, unearned wealth) than any normal person could ever make from earned income.

Of course, it's not quite so simple as that, but taxing wealth is a sound principle, if a country wants to stop the increase in inequality. By the way, I'm pretty sure some countries do tax wealth in the form of land taxes.

growstuff McDonnell has outlined his plans and, no, it is not scaremongering, just go on the net under Labour plans. How else would I know? I can tell you it is an exact replica of Thomas Piketty's first book "Capital in the XXI century" , which I have read and I also plan to read his second book "Capital and Ideologies" to be published en français on 12/09/19, which apparently is better than the first book (from the critics).
Agreed there should be a cap on immense wealth to stop the grotesque greed of some individuals. How many billions do you need to be happy? However, the debate goes on... we haven't found yet the System which will abolish Capitalism, although the Scandinavian countries at 55%-60% taxes have reached a good standard of life with reduced social inequalities.

nanou could you give a reference for McDonnell pre-release of exactly what he intends to do. I seem to have missed it.

^Agreed there should be a cap on immense wealth to stop the grotesque greed of some individuals.*

All wealth should be taxed on an estimate income annually at the same rates as income tax. No one should be able to be better off from unearned income than they are from earned income.

Estimated

Oh for goodness sakes, the bloody politicians will do what they want in the end anyway. We don't have say in it apart from a General Election and that's a joke as they NEVER keep to their manifesto. All I know is that I couldn't vote for Tony Blair, but he won, and I accepted that the majority voted for him . Did I ask for another General Election because the vote didn't go the way I wanted it to? No. The fact remains that the majority voted leave, like it or not, that's democracy. Personally I'm sick of all the talk and no action. Just bloody well get on with it! Grrrrr. Sorry, rant finished

I'm very sorry, but I can find plenty of mentions in the media of Labour's plans to tax wealth, but I can't find any original declarations, which I'd like to read before I make up my mind. If you have a link, I'd be very grateful.

I did find a document called "Land for the Many", but that's more about use of land and is very interesting.

labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/12081_19-Land-for-the-Many.pdf

PS. I almost certainly wouldn't vote Labour anyway, but I'm interested.

the difference Evie with an election is that its repeated every few years and you can change your mind.Brexit isn't reversable..once we're out we're out.IF we try to get back in it wont be under the extraordinary favourable terms we already have .We need to be sure and doublle sure this is what the WHOLE country wants before we wreck or economy for the next 50 years .I wont be here in 50 years but I wouldn't want my children and GC to live with the results of an ill thought exit from the EU .

I'd rather not "just get on with it" if the outcomes are going to be a worse life than we have now, if it's all the same to you Evie. If you find it all so boring, just switch off.

All wealth should be taxed on an estimate income annually at the same rates as income tax. No one should be able to be better off from unearned income than they are from earned income.

I wonder if people who don't have unearned income are aware that income from dividends, which is unearned income, is taxed at 10% whereas income earned by people who go out every day and work for their money is taxed at 20% or more? This seems to me to be grossly unfair and I can see no justification at all for it. Let's not pretend that investing in shares is usually in any way beneficial to anyone but the people buying and selling them. The only time the money invested 'works' for anyone apart from the person investing it is when it is buying shares issued to capitalise a new business or to increase the capital of an existing enterprise.

I don't understand why people who work for their income should defend people whose wealth is increased by investment income which they don't have to make any effort to 'earn'.

Which is maybe drifting from the main point; but it seems to me that at least equalising the tax liability on earned and unearned income is a simple way to increase the tax take and go a way towards reducing inequality.

It was in the Summer and J McD was talking on Sky News.

The lifetime gift tax
Recently, the shadow chancellor John McDonnell made waves when he told Sky News that Labour was “looking at” a lifetime gift tax (LGT) to replace IHT. We need to have a fairer system of how we can ensure that wealth is more fairly distributed – that’s one idea and we are listening to a whole range of ideas,” McDonnell said.

www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/lifetime-gift-tax-labour-plans-to-scrap-iht

still looking where I found it in the Labour website.

Thank you. If you find it, I'd be very interested (not that it's likely to affect me in any way - unfortunately).

From your quote, it looks like it's still an idea. If you follow Tax Research, you'll know this has been bandied about for years.

paddyann We have been lied to on both sides and the people did vote on what they heard/believed. As the country has reached such a strangulation, it's only fair to have a second referendum so NOW people will cast their vote on what they have learned for the last 3 years. The stakes are too high to be ignored or it will be the split of the United Kingdom.

growstuff thanks. will have another look.

PS. Thank you for the link. Unless Labour is in power, it's unlikely that details will be refined. As the article confirms, it's just ideas at the moment.

PPS. I agree with you that we need a second referendum. :-)