Steve Wright, the general secretary of the FBU, said: “Introducing a wealth tax to fund public services, a generous welfare state, and workers’ pay must be a priority in the second year of a Labour government.
“There’s overwhelming support for that approach within the Labour Party, trade unions and the electorate.
“The Prime Minister and Chancellor must abandon the welfare cuts and instead tax the super-rich as an alternative to the Tory austerity that was so decisively rejected by the electorate a year ago.”
There was no austerity. That’s why there’s no money to pay for your little list.
…within the Labour Party, trade unions and the electorate.
Never a surprise from such a source to see who comes (a distant) third in such a list.
I wonder what questions were asked of “the electorate”?
Would you support more government spending if the money comes from the rich?
And if the rich fuck off, do you want the extra spending to come out of your wallet?
If the government told you to burn your cash on a fire would you do it?
Odd how the imaginary wishes of the electorate matter in this case. But the real wishes of the electorate to e.g. throw a load of foreigners into the sea can be dismissed.
Even the New Statesman is against a wealth tax: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2025/07/just-raise-tax
The linked article is actually moderately sensible in that it proposes raising income taxes in order to pay for all the public services people demand. I happen to disagree and think that the public sector should be small enough to drown in the bath, but at least there’s some logic being applied.
There is a bit of me which thinks that we should have one Budget where the Chancellor announces that the government will raise taxes to a level which reduces borrowing to (say) £50 billion and allows for (say) £50 billion a year in new spending on things people say they want. *Pause for dramatic effect* Right then, that means 7p extra on all tiers of taxation plus 7p on VAT (I think this raises £150 billion in theory). Don’t like this? OK, shut the fuck up and suck up £150 billion in spending cuts.
And
ifwhen the rich fuck off, do you want the extra spending to come out of your wallet?FTFY
Increase VAT, that way those who advocate increasing taxes will feel some of the pain – It may make them change their minds……..And didn’t someone* once famously say “we are all in this together”?
*Apparently, as Labour leader, Mad Ed also said it, but in the terms of ‘we are all in this together so only the rich are going to pay’.
Quite apart from the economic illiteracy of socialists insisting on more welfare spending, their head-in-the-sand denial of welfare dependency is quite pathetic. Welfare dependency ruins lives. So, sure, have a welfare safety net, but make it largely time-limited.
Most people wouldn’t object to raising taxes to spend on public services if the services worked and there’d be a visible improvement in quality, instead they know most of the money being gobbled up in higher wages and and the rest wasted with no visible signs of improved quality.
But then again, if we had public services that hadn’t gobbled up past increases in public spending in higher wages for no productivity increase and had actually improved quality we wouldn’t need the proposed increases.
Or we could just stop giving free stuff to a bunch of third-world freeloaders. As figures from Denmark and the Netherlands clearly show, non-white immigrants are a massive drain on both countries exchequers, to the tune of about €200,000 over their lifetimes.
I read today (can’t remember where) that a each illegal migrant entertained in the UK costs £400 a day, so that’s the best part of €200,000 wasted on each worthless moocher in a year, never mind a lifetime.
Marius, the Danish and Dutch studies looked at legal immigrants, not illegals.
“Kill the rich; take their stuff.”
So, it’s okay to attack whites. It’s okay to attack ‘the rich.’ It’s okay to attack Christians. It’s okay to attack men.
Who else? Is Gamecock the only one who finds it bizarre they can talk about attacking the rich . . . in front of the rich? As I have said, the prosperous will not speak up.
This has been the Leftist play book for at least 60 years. It’s boring.
Wow, “Lord Kinnock” looks terrible.
Let’s hope he dies soon.
Lord Kinnock, who was Labour leader from 1983 to 1992, told Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that imposing a 2% tax on assets valued above £10 million would bring in up to £11 billion a year.
It might in the first year, retard.
The most popular comment on the Telegraph article:
“let’s start with the Kinnock family! A set of grifters grown rich on politics in the UK and EU.”
Hard to disagree with that assessment.
Most wealth is people’s pensions. Go on: “we must take people’s pensions in order to fund public services, a generous welfare state, and workers’ pay “.
Okay, then, kill Kinnock and take his stuff.
Wait to see who proposes it next. Anyone?
‘Economists have also said such a move would trigger a fresh exodus of the rich from Britain.’
They have already started the paper work.
We need to introduce a major change in how the country is governed. In future, no policy should be allowed to increase spending until the total debt has reduced by a significant amount (maybe about 5% per year) and even then any proposal that spending be financed by a specific tax increase must impose the tax increase first and only when the tax has been raised can the money be spent. We have seen far too many policies where some excessive spending is claimed to be justified by some particular saving elsewhere or some tax increase, yet almost always the spending happens and the revenue fails to materialise. This is unsustainable.
Unions.