Keir Starmer repeatedly dodges answering why he “can’t afford” to raise taxes on top 5% earners

9 comments

1. [source](https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1795127051516617188?t=oE9dCMF9iBHK6FdlkxFayw&s=19)

2. He’s an arsewipe.

3. Should always be a bit cagey when talking to sky news. Murdoch does like his gotcha moments.

   And make sure your mic is definitely turned off at the end.

4. Rigby’s a good interviewer.

   She should host the leadership debate.

5. Good.

   The answer is the top 5% already pay a huge amount of income tax and work in highly desirable fields like medicine, dentistry and finance which most countries in the world would be happy to snap up and we’d be left trying to train more of them.

   Just continuing to tax these people more is not the answer.

   Get more people in the higher tax brackets is the answer. Grow the economy, increase wages and we all win.

6. Here we go again, let’s tax everyone who has more than me cause I’m the only person affected by cost of living and mortgages going through the roof.

7. How can you not afford to raise taxes on the top 5%? Just as much the robot as any other tory

8. The top 10% of earners already contribute 60% of income tax receipts.

   We already have a very progressive tax model, that, to be frank, relies too heavily biased n high earners. This is not sustainable, because high earners are more mobile and generally highly skilled, so are more sought after in the international Labour market.
   Furthermore, a lot of high earners haven’t inherited their wealth; they have gotten there through hard work, their talents, personal development and their own skillset (obviously combined with a bit of luck too)

   It’s time to stop considering taxes on income, and start taxing wealth instead.

   When money moves, it generates goods and services and grows the economy. Income is a movement of money, in return for the services of the person or goods provided by the person.

   Wealth however, just sits and does nothing. It sits in the value of homes, it sits in bank accounts or in the stock markets, where the velocity of money is slow and more stagnant, and therefore doesn’t generate as much value for the economy.

   Better to incetivise multiple income streams and high income, and punish wealth accumulation with things like a higher inheritance tax, a wealth tax, a land tax etc.

9. I think he knows the reason he can’t say why he “can’t afford” it is because it would be extremely unpalatable and probably cause an unnecessary negative headline that detracts from his campaign.

   I mean it’s not great but I think he’s right. I’d rather he be honest than make promises they can’t keep. Which they’ve already done in a sense, so continuing in that vein would be disastrous.