Are Labor's proposed superannuation tax changes a super big deal?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
If Reeves isn't stopped, every inch of Britain will be the property of the state
The pitch rolling has started. The propagandists have been unleashed. We are being softened-up for the ultimate betrayal, the most obscene of broken promises, the grossest attack on private wealth in living memory. If you are a homeowner, I have grim news: Rachel Reeves has just declared war on you. You could pay even more tax, so much so that in some cases you may be forced to sell your house to pay the bill – and then to hand over yet more cash just to be allowed to say goodbye to your beloved family home. Reeves is considering several options, all abhorrent: an annual proportional wealth tax on the value of homes, large enough to replace stamp duty, council tax and more; the imposition of capital gains tax (CGT) on primary residences for the first time ever, albeit just on more expensive ones at first; an 'exit tax' as an alternative to CGT, payable on sale; and a revaluation of council tax, with even higher bands, including a mansion tax. Britain is in the midst of an epic struggle between tax-eaters and net taxpayers, between those seeking to squeeze ever more out of the private sector to keep our bankrupt welfare state going a little longer, and those desperately seeking to preserve their wealth at a time of weak GDP, stagnant real wages and rocketing costs. We have almost reached the economy's maximal taxable capacity, at least with the tools at HMRC's disposal. The bond vigilantes are circling, and Reeves has taken the UK to the brink of fiscal meltdown. Her party won't allow her to cut spending, so she is turning to the last untapped El Dorado, the final pot of cash ripe for raiding: our homes, worth trillions of pounds in total. If she goes down, she wants it to be in a blaze of Left-wing glory, taking out the forces of conservatism's last bastion and scoring the greatest victory for socialism since the glory days of Hugh Dalton and Sir Stafford Cripps. Primary residences have long been the great tax taboo, the last line of defence against predatory politicians: no government has been able to directly tax their gains in value or to impose an annual levy (a property wealth tax) over and above council tax. Slapping CGT on primary residences or an annual property wealth tax based on the value of one's home isn't some minor technocratic tweak to the tax system to make it slightly more 'efficient' or 'fair': it's an attempt at dynamiting the foundations of our society, to drastically curtail the power of the petite bourgeoisie, and to enshrine the political class's supremacy. Unlike with ISAs or pensions, whose tax-beneficial status are understood to survive at the Chancellor's discretion, primary residences are an Englishman's tax-free castles, for which we assume we have a natural right not to be taxed. This is one of the last in-built libertarian assumptions in British society, and the reason why Reeves's proposed tax 'reforms' are so pernicious. Tim Leunig, who advised Rishi Sunak and whose Left-wing ideas are also proving attractive to Reeves, is advocating for a 0.44 per cent levy on homes worth up to £500,000 to replace council tax. He simultaneously wants stamp duty to be replaced by a 0.54 per cent annual tax on homes above £500,000, with an extra 0.28 per cent supplement on values over £1m. These would be revenue-neutral, which wouldn't be good enough for Reeves: she wants to raise billions more. The rates would need to be even higher. I loathe council tax and stamp duty, but this idiot savant scheme would create Britain's first annual wealth tax, levied on a stock of illiquid assets, and would prove even worse. Property rights would be abrogated, and homeowners downgraded into leaseholders, paying the state-cum-landlord a fee for the right to keep living in our homes. The ancient tradition of the yeoman freeholder would be extinguished. Many homeowners would end up paying £7,000, £15,000 or more a year. At best, there would be no money left for holidays or school fees; at worst, total tax bills would exceed 100 per cent of annual incomes. Pensioners and the cash-poor would be forced to sell. Many would pray their house didn't increase in value, and halt repairs and enhancements. Some would tear down garages or annexes to reduce their annual tax, or allow homes and gardens to fall into disrepair to influence assessors. Entrepreneurs, rich investors and the last non-doms would flee the UK. We should scrap stamp duty, but by cutting spending, not by introducing this repulsive new form of larceny. Imposing CGT on primary residences would be almost as toxic. Like every new tax, invariably pitched to us as limited in scale and scope, it would soon be extended, in this case to ever more homes. The rates would soon be equalised to that on income. Eventually, it would become impossible to make any gains from property at all. Tax used to be only payable on real capital gains, not on inflationary increases. Labour largely ended that key protection; the Tories scrapped the last safeguards. Inflation, now at 3.8 per cent, is once again a silent thief, delivering what Milton Friedman described as 'taxation without legislation' on a grand scale. Under Reeves's plans, homeowners would pay tax on phantom inflationary gains and in many cases lose money in real terms. This would be especially true in London, where real, as opposed to nominal, property prices are often lower than they were a few years ago. It would be barely concealed theft. Buying a house would become a high-risk gamble. Homeowners who haven't kept every receipt would face tax bills for their recently completed new kitchens. More generally, there would be far fewer future home improvements and extensions as the post-tax payback would be lower. Nobody who didn't have to sell their home would do so, especially with the prospect of a Reform government reversing the raid. The housing market would implode. This war on homeowners is a bridge too far, a leap into proto-Marxist hell. Reeves is seeking to pauperise the middle classes. Taxpayers must make their fury known, write to their MPs and take to social media. This is the final battle, the fight to end all political fights: the Chancellor must be persuaded to change her mind, or else there will be no hope left for this country.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ABC issues gag order on 'activist' staff pushing their own agendas on social media after Antoinette Lattouf debacle
Australia's public broadcaster has hit employees with new speech rules and social media restrictions following the Antoinette Lattouf case. The guidelines were announced by ABC editorial director Gavin Fang in an all-staff email on Wednesday. They will replace the previous rules, which were in place when the Federal Court ruled ABC unlawfully terminated Lattouf's employment after she shared a social media post relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Company workers have been told to avoid posting material on social media, as well as other public platforms including online petitions and WhatsApp groups, that could arguably compromise ABC's editorial independence. ABC managing director Hugh Marks previously admitted the Lattouf incident had highlighted the 'confusion' about the company's guidelines for employees' personal social media use. ABC's new policies apply not just to employees on social media, but also while in attendance at public events. The standards apply to 'any context where comments may reasonably be expected to reach a public audience'. In the document, ABC employees are told they must not make public comments that 'undermines your perceived or actual ability to perform your role; undermines the independence or integrity of the ABC or any ABC editorial content; implies ABC endorsement of your personal views; is on behalf of the ABC, or in a way that could be seen as representing the ABC, without prior authorisation'. The new guidelines state a worker's contract may include 'specific restrictions' regarding public comment. 'Public comments that do not meet the standards set out in these guidelines will be managed by line management, in consultation with People & Culture and Editorial Policies where required and may constitute a breach of the ABC's Code of Conduct,' the rules read. 'A breach of the Code of Conduct will be dealt with in accordance with the relevant ABC employment contract and/or enterprise agreement and may lead to disciplinary action, including possible termination of employment,' reported Lattouf was hired for ABC Radio on a five-day presenting role in Sydney in December 2023 before being fired. She was let go after just three shifts after sharing a Human Rights Watch post that said Israel was using starvation as a 'weapon of war' in Gaza. Justice Darryl Rangiah, who delivered his judgment in Sydney's Federal Court in June, found the ABC contravened the Fair Work Act by terminating Lattouf's employment. He ruled the broadcaster had breached the act by firing the presenter 'for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza'. Justice Rangiah found pro-Israel lobbyists formed an 'orchestrated campaign' to pressure then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose to take Lattouf off air. The ABC claimed that they had given Lattouf a 'direction' not to 'post anything on social media that would suggest she was not impartial in relation to the Israel/Gaza war'. But Justice Rangiah found that an email campaign from pro-Israel supporters alleged Lattouf 'expressed anti-Semitic views, lacked impartiality and was unsuitable to present any program for the ABC'. 'The complaints caused great consternation amongst the senior management of the ABC,' he said. Justice Rangiah found that instead of being given a 'direction' from senior ABC management, Lattouf was 'merely provided with advice that it would be best not to post anything controversial about the war'. 'That advice was also qualified by an indication that posting fact-based material from a verified source would be fine.' The ABC was ordered to pay Lattouf compensation of $70,000.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Further delay in Holly Willoughby media company winding up case
Holly Willoughby 's media company is set to return to a specialist insolvency court in November following the result of a tribunal appeal. Roxy Media, the media production and management firm run by the TV presenter and her husband Dan Baldwin, is facing winding-up proceedings from His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC). A hearing at the Insolvency and Companies Court in April heard that the firm owed £377,000 in tax, which had been reduced from an unknown amount. Lawyers for Roxy Media said last month that the company was seeking to take the case to a tax tribunal. The company applied for a further adjournment on Wednesday to await the outcome of that appeal. Jon-Selous Borlace, for HMRC, told the specialist court: 'The company said it filed an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal.' ICC Judge Sally Barber allowed the adjournment 'to await the outcome of the appeal', setting the next hearing for November 12. Willoughby set up the company with her husband to specialise in managing media clients. Records on Companies House indicate that she was appointed as a director of the company in 2014, and Mr Baldwin in 2008. The presenter is best known for previously fronting ITV daytime show This Morning and Dancing On Ice.
