Related Articles
SIR – Unfortunately I don’t believe Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, when she declares there would be no new wealth taxes under a Labour government (Interview, August 27).
This is not because I think she might be lying. I am sure she understands that increasing taxes is a barrier to growth and wants to avoid being responsible for a lacklustre economy.
No, I don’t believe her because the comprehensive failure by current politicians to display any imagination has resulted in them believing there is only one tool in the economic toolkit. Whenever they are aware of a problem, the only cause they see is a lack of money, and therefore the only solution they come up with is to spend more – requiring a rise in taxes.
Ms Reeves will likely be the same. Taxes will rise, they just won’t be called wealth taxes – even though all taxes are wealth taxes by another name. The only good that will come out of this is that we will hit “peak tax” sooner: the point at which any new tax will fail to increase overall revenue.
At that moment, politicians of all parties will be forced to confront reality and use their imaginations to work out what the state should do, what should be left to the market, and what a sustainable future for healthcare and welfare looks like.
Only then might we begin to see some improvement in growth and productivity, which will eventually lead to increased prosperity.
Ian Mackenzie
Preston, Lancashire
SIR – Isn’t it a bit early for Rachel Reeves to announce that there will be no wealth tax if Labour forms the next government? After all, Sir Keir Starmer has more than enough time to change his mind – several times – between now and the next election.
Charles Penfold
Ulverston, Cumbria
SIR – If Labour has no intention of asking billionaires to pay a fairer share towards society through taxation, how does it differ from the present Government?
It may claim that tackling non-domiciled residents will help the tax take, but it will not solve much at all. The only thing that will happen is that these people will spend a greater amount of their money abroad, rather than in this country. If that is all Labour has to offer as an alternative policy, voting for it seems pointless.
We would be better served by allowing the Prime Minister to follow the policy of “steady as she goes” and providing long-term stability.
Bernard Borman
Richmond, North Yorkshire
SIR – Matthew Lynn’s article, “Bank of Mum and Dad is dragging down the economy” (August 27), reaches some back-to-front conclusions. He looks at parents helping their children as a “problem”, contributing to widening divisions in society, whereas in fact people looking after their own families should be the solution.
If families were more self-sufficient, rather than expecting cradle-to-grave state care, we might be in a better place than we are now. I agree that the property market is dysfunctional, but encouraging more housebuilding does not mean we should discourage the most powerful, natural and beneficial human motivation: to fight for your children and help them on their way.
The Labour Party’s daft plan to put VAT on private school fees is one of many examples of the governing class trying to penalise anyone who wants to provide for themselves and their family. Why does no one try anything truly radical, like an educational voucher system, setting parents free to contribute financially towards something better? Are we so out of ideas that we must accept what we are given?
The Bank of Mum and Dad has more sense than the state – it focuses on those it cares about, and that is no bad thing.
Lauren Groom
Salisbury, Wiltshire
Source link
