Should the government tax ‘wealth instead of work’? Readers discuss
As Labour struggles to make progress in fixing the country, one name keeps popping into my head – Liz Truss. The state runs on borrowing. David Cameron promised to cut the deficit but austerity cost us growth and money in the long run, while Brexit has been bad for business. Then Covid hit and the government had to borrow even more. This wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for Truss and her disastrous mini-budget. The markets lost confidence in our ability to pay our debts, so the interest rates rose dramatically and now we’re paying huge interest on our debt, which we can only pay back if there’s less spending or more tax revenue.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants that revenue to increase by getting more people into work and earning higher wages. But the way to make that happen is by investing in people – and there’s no money to invest. There are three possible solutions. The first is to borrow more money and hope the investment pays back enough in taxes to cover the cost. Reeves says she won’t do that. The second is to cut spending. It makes sense to cut the state pension, the largest part of the welfare bill, but that’s extremely unpopular. The third (and best, in my view) is to raise tax rates. In theory, the best way to do this is to tax wealth rather than work but people argue that the super-rich will then move elsewhere. Whether they actually will is a separate argument – but if they do, then we must work with other countries to close tax loopholes, increase wealth taxes and get money to where it needs to be.
Ellie Jaeger, Leighton Buzzard
The government has grown the economy
With the right economic plan in place, the government has grown the economy by 0.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2026. So, yes, of course, the best thing we can do now is have a leadership election in said government or put our faith in the leader of the Anti-Federalist League/Ukip/Brexit Party/Reform or whichever party brand he is hiding under until he is found out again. Great.
Bobby Jones, Kidbrooke
‘A nation divided between those who can afford to live and those who find it impossible’
People are suffering. Some are starving. Bills, mortgages and rents cannot be paid. We are a nation divided between those who can afford to live and those who find the cost of living impossible. The chancellor goes around saying how good the economy is… she should be sacked and Labour replaced by a party that cares about the people of this country.
Shirley Maher, London
Did Brexit or lockdown cause greater damage to the economy?
Sally Anne Smith (MetroTalk, Thu) says Brexit has proven to be an ‘absolute failure that has damaged our country’. The biggest damage by far to our country was lockdown, costing taxpayers around £400billion. Add a dose of inflation after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and I defy anyone to disentangle a negative Brexit effect of any note. EU fans claim that UK trade with the EU has reduced while ignoring that trade with the rest of the world has increased. Given our trade with the rest of the world is in surplus – while we still have a huge trade deficit with the EU – a move away from the EU seems preferable. Sally Anne claims immigration is not a major problem – but if the population had remained stable, would house prices have surged by twice or even three times inflation? No.
Julian, Orpington
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments.
