I get the impression that Labour’s current bout of performative fiscal cruelty is an attempt to roll the pitch for breaking its manifesto pledge to not raise taxes.
It’s killing Labour babies to communicate “raising your tax is a last resort”
But why is it not raising tax on the mega rich as well?
It’s killing Labour babies to communicate “raising your tax is a last resort”
But why is it not raising tax on the mega rich as well?
Comments
I’m not sure I believe it, but I get the argument.
And yet… the current strategy isn’t about “saving money” it’s about communicating “tough decisions” to get voters onside.
And thanks to Trump and Putin showing how fragile that stability is, now is the time for that message.
Perhaps that will come at the same time as the other tax rises.
Perhaps the message is “we’re all in this together.”
I agree there has to be a bit of ‘look we’re doing this but we’re doing it responsibly’ going on. But if so it’s performative and cruel to use people in that way. And mixed messaging in other ways.
There are better in it together strategies I think
“The mega rich aren’t paying their fair share” is as powerful a message as “the undeserving poor are getting our money” and “government wastes too much of our money.”
None of this is fiscal strategy, it’s comms.
I was wondering if because ’tax the rich’ isn’t enough, that’s why they’re not trying it as a message first? It risks people thinking there’s an easy solution when there isn’t.
It could be their thinking ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So dramatically raising tax on the rich as cover to raise taxes on everyone else at the same time.
If the rich want to go risk their fortunes to live in unstable autocracies, let them!
Here they need to pay a stability premium.
But while do have current evidence that some people will relocate I think a lot is a hangover from the days of 70-90% higher rates…
Like I said: if they want to risk their fortunes in unstable autocracies, let them make that mistake.
Living under the protection of Rule of law costs money.