Will

[victor]

Starmer have to do another U turn as 108 labour MP' threaten to vote against his benefit cuts.
Cracks beginning to appear?

Sent from my SM-A156B using Tapatalk

[cromwell]

The joke is that the "reforms" will hardly touch the sides.
The problem being that an increasing number of people are actively searching for reasons never to work, and the system is allowing them to.
"Anxiety" shouldn't be a reason for a career on benefits.
Unless and until situations like that are addressed the problem of the welfare bill will never improve.

[Workingman]

Amazing isn't it? For decades the large part of the public - left, right and centre - have been all for curbing welfare. It was hostels not homes for single mothers, workfare or YTS for the young unemployed, vouchers not cash for the long-term unemployed, and so on. Yet whenever any government, any government, tries to do anything about it the media and bleeding hearts brigades are out in force. This is no different.

We are all relatively aware that there are those who are gaming the system... notably the sickness benefits system, but the system helps them. ESA and PIPs were both badly designed. Not everyone who entered those systems was going to be long-term sick / unemployed, yet once they were on them it was virtually impossible to get them off. A big problem, as has always been the case, is that once something is given for free it is hard to take it away, and that is where we are at.

[Suff]

The most interesting point about this is that they have had to understand that 48% of the "wealth" is now owned by basic rate and no rate tax payers. I asked Grok about this and the response should be on the political reading for every member of the Labour party.

I suggest you read it all. Because a good 15% of the Labour vote is now considered middle class and within the 48% wealth bracket of this discussion. Labour on 22% could poll Less than the Tories in the last election. You can watch them wriggle over the next 3.5 years, but reality is a bitch and they sold a pup based on rhetoric from the last century and lies in the MSM.

Now answer me a question, if your rhetoric as a political party is rooted in the 1910 wealth distribution metric and you get elected, only to find that up to 48% of the wealth you need to tax, in order to deliver your manifesto, is held by basic rate taxpayers; how is your position going to look when you enact laws to try and cut spending and do not tax those who have the ability to balance your budget?

If a political party’s rhetoric is rooted in the 1910 wealth distribution—where the top 1% held 71% of wealth and the bottom 90% held just 7%—and it wins an election expecting to fund its manifesto by taxing the super-wealthy, discovering that up to 48% of wealth in 2025 is held by basic-rate taxpayers (part of the middle 40%, holding 36–48%) creates a significant policy dilemma. The party’s position would face serious challenges, both economically and politically, if it tries to cut spending while avoiding taxing those with the wealth needed to balance the budget. Here’s an analysis of the situation and its implications:


1. Misaligned Expectations from 1910 Rhetoric

-- 1910 Assumption: The party’s manifesto likely promised wealth redistribution by heavily taxing the top 1–10% (who held 93% of wealth in 1910), assuming this would fund ambitious social programs without burdening the broader population. The rhetoric would frame the super-wealthy as the primary target, appealing to voters resentful of elite wealth concentration.


-- 2025 Reality: While the top 1% still hold 20–23% of wealth and the top 10% hold 43–55%, the middle 40% (basic-rate taxpayers and some non-taxpayers) now hold 36–48%. This group, with median household wealth around £200,000–500,000 (often in property or pensions), is far wealthier than the bottom 90% in 1910 (0–7%). Taxing only the super-wealthy won’t suffice to fund a manifesto expecting 1910-like wealth concentration, as their share is much smaller.

2. Economic Challenges

--Revenue Shortfall: If the manifesto requires taxing 48% of total wealth (e.g., to fund universal services, infrastructure, or debt reduction), but the party avoids taxing the middle 40% (basic-rate taxpayers), it must rely on the top 10% (43–55% of wealth) or cut spending drastically. The top 1%’s 20–23% alone is insufficient, and even taxing the top 10% at high rates may not yield enough due to

---- Wealth Composition: Much of the top 10%’s wealth (35% property, 42% pensions) is illiquid, making wealth taxes complex. High income or capital gains taxes could drive capital flight (e.g., wealthy individuals relocating, as seen in X posts about tax avoidance).


---- Revenue Limits: HMRC data suggests the top 1% already pay ~30% of income tax. Excessive taxation risks diminishing returns, as seen in historical cases (e.g., 1970s UK brain drain).

--Spending Cuts: To avoid taxing basic-rate taxpayers, the party might slash public spending (e.g., NHS, welfare, education). However, this contradicts a redistributive manifesto, as these programs likely form its core. Cuts would disproportionately harm the bottom 50% (8–9% of wealth), who rely on public services, undermining the party’s equity goals.

3. Political Fallout

-- Broken Promises: The manifesto’s 1910-based rhetoric likely promised to “tax the rich” without burdening ordinary workers. Learning that basic-rate taxpayers hold 36–48% of wealth forces a choice

---- Tax the Middle: Introducing wealth, property, or pension taxes on basic-rate taxpayers (e.g., targeting home equity or retirement funds) risks alienating a broad voter base. X posts from 2023–2024 highlight public sensitivity to property tax hikes, with users like @econobserver
noting middle-class backlash against council tax reforms.

-- Avoid Taxation: Relying solely on the top 1–10% or spending cuts breaks manifesto pledges, as revenue falls short. Voters expecting funded services (e.g., free healthcare, education) would feel betrayed, especially the bottom 50%, who gain little from cuts.

-- Eroding Trust: The party’s 1910 rhetoric, misaligned with 2025’s broader wealth distribution, could be seen as outdated or deceptive. Opponents would exploit this, framing the party as economically incompetent. For example, Resolution Foundation reports emphasize that middle-class wealth (property, pensions) is now a key tax base, and ignoring it is unrealistic.

-- Class Tensions: Taxing only the super-wealthy might initially appease the middle 40%, but if services degrade due to underfunding, tensions could arise between the asset-owning middle and the asset-poor bottom 50%. The party risks losing support from both groups.

4. Policy Options and Their Optics

-- To balance the budget while adhering to the manifesto, the party faces tough choices:

---- Tax the Middle 40%:

------ Option: Introduce a wealth tax (e.g., 1–2% on assets over £500,000, as proposed by the Wealth Tax Commission) or reform property taxes (e.g., proportional council tax). This could tap the 36–48% held by basic-rate taxpayers.


------ Optics: Politically toxic, as basic-rate taxpayers (e.g., homeowners, pension savers) see themselves as “working families,” not wealthy. X sentiment (e.g., @taxjusticeuk
) shows resistance to taxing modest assets, with users arguing it punishes aspiration.

------ Impact: Raises significant revenue but risks losing swing voters in the South East, where property wealth is concentrated (ONS: median wealth £503,400).

-- Tax the Top 10% Heavily:

---- Option: Increase income, capital gains, or inheritance taxes on the top 1–10% (43–55% of wealth). For example, equalizing capital gains with income tax could raise £24 billion annually (Resolution Foundation).

------ Optics: Aligns with manifesto rhetoric but may be seen as punitive. The super-wealthy (top 1%) have legal means to avoid taxes (offshore trusts, relocation), as noted in X posts (@wealthgap
, 2024). Middle-upper earners (top 10%) may also resist, feeling squeezed.


------ Impact: Limited by tax avoidance and economic slowdown risks (e.g., reduced investment). Insufficient alone for 48% of wealth.

-- Cut Spending:

---- Option: Reduce public sector budgets (e.g., welfare, local services) to avoid new taxes.

------ Optics: Disastrous for a redistributive party. Cuts hit the bottom 50% hardest, contradicting equity goals. X users (e.g., @povertywatch
, 2023) highlight public anger at austerity, linking it to child poverty rises (3.4 million children in poverty, 2024).


------ Impact: Fails to deliver manifesto promises, alienates core voters, and risks social unrest.

--Hybrid Approach:

---- Option: Combine modest taxes on the middle 40% (e.g., pension relief caps for higher earners) with higher taxes on the top 1% (e.g., wealth tax on £10m+ fortunes) and targeted spending efficiencies.


------ Optics: Balances pragmatism with rhetoric but requires careful messaging to avoid middle-class backlash. The party must reframe basic-rate taxpayers with wealth as “comfortably off” rather than “ordinary.”

------ Impact: More feasible but still contentious. Revenue depends on execution (e.g., closing tax loopholes, as per Tax Justice Network).

5. Strategic PositionThe party’s position looks precarious:

-- Rhetorical Trap: Campaigning on 1910 metrics sets unrealistic expectations. The public expects the super-wealthy to foot the bill, but their 20–23% share can’t cover 48% of wealth needs. Acknowledging the middle 40%’s wealth risks admitting the manifesto was misinformed, damaging credibility.


-- Voter Backlash: Taxing basic-rate taxpayers or cutting services alienates key demographics. The middle 40% (swing voters) and bottom 50% (core supporters) both feel betrayed, depending on the approach.

-- Opposition Advantage: Rival parties will exploit the gap between rhetoric and reality, framing the party as either anti-middle-class (if taxing wealth) or fiscally irresponsible (if cutting services). X posts (e.g., @ukpoliticslive, 2024) show how quickly tax debates polarize.

-- Long-Term Risk: Failure to deliver could discredit redistributive policies, strengthening neoliberal arguments that wealth taxes are unworkable (as seen in King’s College London reports).

6. RecommendationsTo salvage its position, the party should:

-- Reframe the Narrative: Acknowledge 2025’s wealth distribution while emphasizing fairness. Highlight that taxing modest wealth (e.g., second homes, large pensions) targets “excess,” not aspiration.


-- Target Illiquid Wealth Carefully: Use phased wealth taxes (e.g., 0.5% on £1m+ assets) and reform inheritance tax to capture top 10% wealth without hitting basic-rate taxpayers too broadly.

-- Boost Tax Compliance: Crack down on tax avoidance by the top 1% (e.g., closing non-dom loopholes), as suggested by Tax Justice Network, to align with rhetoric.

-- Prioritize High-Impact Spending: Focus spending on visible wins (e.g., child poverty reduction, NHS wait times) to maintain voter support, even if scaled back.

-- Engage the Public: Use transparent communication (e.g., town halls, X campaigns) to explain why middle-class wealth must contribute, citing ONS data on property and pension growth.

Conclusion

The party’s 1910-based rhetoric, expecting to tax a tiny elite, clashes with 2025’s reality, where basic-rate taxpayers hold 36–48% of wealth. Avoiding taxes on this group while cutting spending undermines the manifesto, risks voter backlash, and fails to balance the budget. A hybrid approach—taxing the top 10% aggressively, modestly tapping middle-class wealth, and optimizing spending—is the least bad option but requires deft political management to avoid being seen as a betrayal of promises. The party must pivot from outdated assumptions to a pragmatic, transparent strategy, or face electoral and economic failure.For further details on wealth tax models, check https://x.ai/api or https://www.ukwealth.tax. If you want me to simulate budget impacts or analyze X sentiment on tax policies, let me know!