The Politics Thread

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I don't see how an increase in tax on folk earning over £80k a year is 'squeezing the middle'. I accept it's not rich by today's standards but it's 2 & a half times the average wage. The last large company I worked for with over 200 employees, only the ceo earned in excess of that

Wouldn't it be fairer to go after the genuinely rich folk that are paying effective tax rates that are a fraction of what you or I pay? Could we not fund our services through that, knowing that Boris has crashed the bus? Could we not work with the EU and others to stop large globals from taking the piss? Nah, lets just tax the fcuk out of people working hard on a decent but not excessive salary.

No argument from me there pal. It's to the Tories credit that large companies like Amazon and Google are finally paying some of their share. There's been plenty arguing that approach to be 'anti business ' but when they're raking in billions whilst denying basic workers rights to their staff it's more anti humanitarian!

I just wish regular folk would wake up to it and start to realise that their quest for convenience and the cheapest price possible is what allows these companies to screw staff and suppliers. Half of the stuff people buy on Amazon is 3rd party anyway, so buy it direct off the supplier and probably save yourself some money and know that tax on the profit will actually go to the government.

[Prufrock]

The problem is that while that sounds attractive, study after study (and not by pro business organisations) shows simplified and flat rate tax systems are more regressive and disproportionately hit poor people than typical modern systems. There is a reason most developed social democracies have complicated tax systems.

Also, the "tax gap" has not changed much in decades. It takes time to close down loopholes, and then new ones open up. Most "tax avoidance" schemes do not work and the govt gets the money in the end, the point of then is usually to have cash sitting earning interest in the meantime. The govt has recently introduced accelerated payment notices (basically if HMRC say you're avoiding tax on certain schemes that don't work, you have to pay it up front. The problem is this is very controversial as people who win appeals have had money taken away often for years.

The system is far from perfect but there are no easy fixes to this kind of stuff, there never are.

[Prufrock]

Also, as someone who lives in London, earning a lot less than 80k but still comfortably well off, 80k is rich af! Yes, you can't buy a house, but that is due to the ludicrous housing situation and cannot be the only metric for deciding if someone is well off.

I'd love to buy a house, and maybe I'll win the lottery. I still get plenty of holidays, eat out, savings. I'm by no stretch "struggling" in the way many are.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If you can't afford to buy a relatively modest house/apartment then I don't think the word rich can be used to describe that person.

[BWFC_Insane]

So essentially you are a Conservative. I have no issue with that. I fundamentally disagree though. If we want to redress the balances in our society and improve our public services, progressive taxation is critical.

The London argument falls down when you consider that many, many, (the majority) aren't earning £80K in London and the majority of jobs have a "London surplus" anyway. But even then my whole point is to shift the economy away from London.

There are many parts of the country where you may struggle to afford the house you want on a salary of £80K. It still doesn't make it unreasonable to demand that the top 5% pays a small (and we're talking small here) proportion of tax extra IMHO. For the very reason that we cannot fund our public services as is. And the burden cannot be increased on the poor, because simply the gap between that top 5% and the rest is ever growing.

And I'll happily tell anyone earning £80K who says they aren't well off, to get a grip and go and do some charity work, then re-appraise their lives.

You are very far off the mark. I've never supported the Tories in my life and without a radical rethink in their policies and ideology I never will. I'm not one political party or the other as that is what keeps the status quo. Folk would vote for a blue or a red rosette on a donkey with little to no thought about what they really are voting for. The last 2 elections I voted for the Greens for all the good it did.

I'm not asking for the poor to pay more, I'm asking for a radical rethink as to how do things. Current politics is just being pitched a battle between rich and poor and old vs young. This is divisive and wrong.

For me taxation should be fair to all. There should be one standard rate and it should kick in much higher up the wage ladder to ensure the lowest paid are not punished in any way. But the difference is that everybody pays it at the same rate for every penny they earn over the kick in amount. No ifs, no buts and no loopholes. The exact percentages and where it kicks in should be based on need. Multi-nationals should be paying the same rates of tax as every other business, no loopholes, no ifs no buts. This is fair. The more you earn/make, the more you pay.

The next step is to simplify tax. More simple tax less accountancy cons and loopholes to be exploited. Do away with NI and have a simple income based tax set at a rate to support the services we want. Invest in the future with proper training for future jobs and drag the lower earners up rather than government subsidise low wages, meaning more tax revenue and less benefits. Tax credits was a noble idea to support low wage earners, but it's simply become a subsidy to business.

As for earning 80k, I have never said someone earning that was not well off, so stop making shit up to make an argument. Simply that 80k is not as much as it might seem if you have to live somewhere like London where an equivalent flat/house in a similar type of area is multiples of that say in Bolton.

You might not vote Tory, but you're certainly parroting Tory economic and taxation policy.

How do people earning £20K a year in London survive?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

You might not vote Tory, but you're certainly parroting Tory economic and taxation policy.

How do people earning £20K a year in London survive?

No I'm not. Certainly in the last set of manifestos and the ones before no one was suggesting anything like what I am. Tory taxation policy is to lower it as far as they think they can get away with and reducing services even further. I'm in favour of working out what we need to deliver what we want and then taxing accordingly at a flat rate and significantly raising the tax free threshold so the least well off don't suffer. The better off pay x% on everything rather than employing fancy accountants to pay a rate far lower than even poor people.

People earning 20k a year in London invariably live in a bedsit...a shit one at that and struggle massively day to day. I earned 8k a year when I first moved to London. Probably not a million miles away from a 20k salary today, so I know how it is.

[BWFC_Insane]

You might not vote Tory, but you're certainly parroting Tory economic and taxation policy.

How do people earning £20K a year in London survive?

No I'm not. Certainly in the last set of manifestos and the ones before no one was suggesting anything like what I am. Tory taxation policy is to lower it as far as they think they can get away with and reducing services even further. I'm in favour of working out what we need to deliver what we want and then taxing accordingly at a flat rate and significantly raising the tax free threshold so the least well off don't suffer. The better off pay x% on everything rather than employing fancy accountants to pay a rate far lower than even poor people.

People earning 20k a year in London invariably live in a bedsit...a shit one at that and struggle massively day to day. I earned 8k a year when I first moved to London. Probably not a million miles away from a 20k salary today, so I know how it is.

You're incredibly close to the Tory policy at the last GE. Their policy included: Raising tax free allowance threshold to bring the very lowest paid out of tax. Raising the 40p tax rate to kick in only at £50,000.

I'm sure that essentially the regressive taxation model you propose would be supported by most if not all Tory MP's if they felt they could get away with it.

You're massively overestimating the cost to live comfortably in London. Were it the case that £80K was a bare minimum then the majority of people in the South East who work in London would be classed as "in severe poverty". As Pru says the issue with house buying is supply and demand. So the easiest fix is to increase supply and reduce demand - put charges on businesses opening up their HQ's etc in London. Try and spread things out round the country more. Build more houses. 5p extra in the pound on tax for incomes above £80K is neither here nor there in terms of affording a house in London. Nor will it push people below the breadline. They'll still be incredibly wealthy. They might just have a hospital where the staff aren't massively overworked though. I know I'd happily pay the extra tax even on my terribly "poor sub £80K" salary.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

You might not vote Tory, but you're certainly parroting Tory economic and taxation policy.

How do people earning £20K a year in London survive?

No I'm not. Certainly in the last set of manifestos and the ones before no one was suggesting anything like what I am. Tory taxation policy is to lower it as far as they think they can get away with and reducing services even further. I'm in favour of working out what we need to deliver what we want and then taxing accordingly at a flat rate and significantly raising the tax free threshold so the least well off don't suffer. The better off pay x% on everything rather than employing fancy accountants to pay a rate far lower than even poor people.

People earning 20k a year in London invariably live in a bedsit...a shit one at that and struggle massively day to day. I earned 8k a year when I first moved to London. Probably not a million miles away from a 20k salary today, so I know how it is.

You're incredibly close to the Tory policy at the last GE. Their policy included: Raising tax free allowance threshold to bring the very lowest paid out of tax. Raising the 40p tax rate to kick in only at £50,000.

I'm sure that essentially the regressive taxation model you propose would be supported by most if not all Tory MP's if they felt they could get away with it.

You're massively overestimating the cost to live comfortably in London. Were it the case that £80K was a bare minimum then the majority of people in the South East who work in London would be classed as "in severe poverty". As Pru says the issue with house buying is supply and demand. So the easiest fix is to increase supply and reduce demand - put charges on businesses opening up their HQ's etc in London. Try and spread things out round the country more. Build more houses. 5p extra in the pound on tax for incomes above £80K is neither here nor there in terms of affording a house in London. Nor will it push people below the breadline. They'll still be incredibly wealthy. They might just have a hospital where the staff aren't massively overworked though. I know I'd happily pay the extra tax even on my terribly "poor sub £80K" salary.

The Tories wouldn't like my tax policy because the folk at the top would pay more tax, the people in the middle probably broadly similar and the ones at the very bottom probably less.

Can I ask when the last time you lived in London was? I lived there for over 25 years at varying levels of income. I do know what the problems are and to state someone on 80k is rich is just not true. They are better off than many, but comparatively poorer than people living elsewhere that earn less. I don't disagree that housing can be fixed by various means you mention, but that is all a red herring. Someone earning 80k is well off, lucky etc etc, but they aren't rich by UK standards, particularly if they live in London or somewhere equally expensive. I maintain that you fix taxation by taxing the genuinely rich folk at the same rate as everyone else, because they are paying a much lower tax rate than you or I.

[BWFC_Insane]

You might not vote Tory, but you're certainly parroting Tory economic and taxation policy.

How do people earning £20K a year in London survive?

No I'm not. Certainly in the last set of manifestos and the ones before no one was suggesting anything like what I am. Tory taxation policy is to lower it as far as they think they can get away with and reducing services even further. I'm in favour of working out what we need to deliver what we want and then taxing accordingly at a flat rate and significantly raising the tax free threshold so the least well off don't suffer. The better off pay x% on everything rather than employing fancy accountants to pay a rate far lower than even poor people.

People earning 20k a year in London invariably live in a bedsit...a shit one at that and struggle massively day to day. I earned 8k a year when I first moved to London. Probably not a million miles away from a 20k salary today, so I know how it is.

You're incredibly close to the Tory policy at the last GE. Their policy included: Raising tax free allowance threshold to bring the very lowest paid out of tax. Raising the 40p tax rate to kick in only at £50,000.

I'm sure that essentially the regressive taxation model you propose would be supported by most if not all Tory MP's if they felt they could get away with it.

You're massively overestimating the cost to live comfortably in London. Were it the case that £80K was a bare minimum then the majority of people in the South East who work in London would be classed as "in severe poverty". As Pru says the issue with house buying is supply and demand. So the easiest fix is to increase supply and reduce demand - put charges on businesses opening up their HQ's etc in London. Try and spread things out round the country more. Build more houses. 5p extra in the pound on tax for incomes above £80K is neither here nor there in terms of affording a house in London. Nor will it push people below the breadline. They'll still be incredibly wealthy. They might just have a hospital where the staff aren't massively overworked though. I know I'd happily pay the extra tax even on my terribly "poor sub £80K" salary.

The Tories wouldn't like my tax policy because the folk at the top would pay more tax, the people in the middle probably broadly similar and the ones at the very bottom probably less.

Can I ask when the last time you lived in London was? I lived there for over 25 years at varying levels of income. I do know what the problems are and to state someone on 80k is rich is just not true. They are better off than many, but comparatively poorer than people living elsewhere that earn less. I don't disagree that housing can be fixed by various means you mention, but that is all a red herring. Someone earning 80k is well off, lucky etc etc, but they aren't rich by UK standards, particularly if they live in London or somewhere equally expensive. I maintain that you fix taxation by taxing the genuinely rich folk at the same rate as everyone else, because they are paying a much lower tax rate than you or I.

The genuinely rich to me reads like "make it someone else's problem". The problem with that is often those people aren't taxed through the PAYE system and therefore aren't paying income tax on all their money. And further, whilst ideally we should be finding ways to ensure large corporations and these individuals pay their fair share, British governments have been trying to do this for a while and it hasn't significantly improved the tax take, and I dare say costs a lot to do. Not that we should let them get away with it. But ultimately I think Corbyn's Labour would tackle the issue more seriously than May's Tories.

The London thing a) lots of jobs have a London surplus where you're paid more than equivalent roles elsewhere in the country. b) Ultimately its your choice to live and work in a place where there is a higher cost of living. It may make you relatively poorer than someone living and working in Stoke on the same salary....but you don't have to live and work in Stoke. It still does not make someone earning £80K poor. Nor does it mean they shouldn't pay 5p extra in the pound for earnings above that amount.

As for the rest its a good debate and something that is going to provoke some extreme passion on either side. So perhaps best we leave it around where it is.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I don't think any government has truly tried to resolve the problem of corporations and truly wealthy people. They make a few noises about it but maintain the status quo. Rather like May, she talks about stuff but does absolutely fcuk all to address it. Half the reason wealthy people get away with it is because it's unnecessarily complicated. Absolute flat rate might be overly simplistic, but I think it's better than the current system because there is nowhere to hide. If it can be proven you earned it then you pay the tax at x% regardless of who you think you are.

I'm not advocating people pay different rates of tax based on where you live, just pointing out that a definition of wealth is not as simple as a salary number. It'll be interesting to see how things transpire in Scotland in light of their recent implementation of a new tax bracket which feels like tinkering around the edges to me. I'm moving to Scotland in less than 2 months, but as I'm leaving the rat race behind, it wont affect me anyway

I think ultimately we agree that people that earn more should pay more tax, I just think the way it's been done for decades is not fair as it suits those at the top. I think it shouldn't penalise anyone, whether rich or poor and should be designed to be totally transparent and ultimately adequately fund the services we as a society need.

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't think any government has truly tried to resolve the problem of corporations and truly wealthy people. They make a few noises about it but maintain the status quo. Rather like May, she talks about stuff but does absolutely fcuk all to address it. Half the reason wealthy people get away with it is because it's unnecessarily complicated. Absolute flat rate might be overly simplistic, but I think it's better than the current system because there is nowhere to hide. If it can be proven you earned it then you pay the tax at x% regardless of who you think you are.

I'm not advocating people pay different rates of tax based on where you live, just pointing out that a definition of wealth is not as simple as a salary number. It'll be interesting to see how things transpire in Scotland in light of their recent implementation of a new tax bracket which feels like tinkering around the edges to me. I'm moving to Scotland in less than 2 months, but as I'm leaving the rat race behind, it wont affect me anyway

I think ultimately we agree that people that earn more should pay more tax, I just think the way it's been done for decades is not fair as it suits those at the top. I think it shouldn't penalise anyone, whether rich or poor and should be designed to be totally transparent and ultimately adequately fund the services we as a society need.

What are you then, specifically on income tax proposing? Currently in England the rates are....

Under 11,500 - tax free
11,500-45,000 - 20%
45,000-150,000 - 40%
Over 150,000 - 45%

And to be clear everyone gets their first £11,500 free, then their next 11,500-45,000 at 20% etc....

You want a flat rate. What flat rate are your proposing and where does it start?

[Prufrock]

AT - I don't think arguing over the word "rich" gets us anywhere. Totally agree that 80k in London is far from yacht in Monte Carlo territory but it's certainly far more comfortable than most people in the country. The important point is that when it comes to targeting the groups who need the govts help the most then, discrete issue of housing aside, 80k Londoners are some way down your list.

On your other point I don't think your argument makes sense. Yes, the complexity of the tax system sometimes allows the super rich to pay less tax, but that complexity is not the fact we have four different brackets of income tax. The super rich aren't paying income tax.

Flat rates are regressive. To have a tax free allowance enough to live comfortably on would also require your flat rate above that to be astronomical to raise the money to pay for services. Your super rich would be even less likely to pay income tax then.

[boltonboris]

What if somebody was earning £80k but had lets say, 2 kids to support and put through nursery/school - Are they rich?

[BWFC_Insane]

What if somebody was earning £80k but had lets say, 2 kids to support and put through nursery/school - Are they rich?

They are better off than the vast majority of people with 2 kids to support aren't they?

Also under the Labour tax proposals they're not defining £80K income as "rich". They're just using it as the level at which earnings over it you pay an extra 5p tax in the pound. So its only when you earn over £80K.

[dave the minion]

What if somebody was earning £80k but had lets say, 2 kids to support and put through nursery/school - Are they rich?

Not necessarily, but most probably.

With a modest house and high living expenses they may not have much spare disposable income, so some would consider them not to be rich at all.

However, "rich-ness" is all relative isn't it? Someone earning 80k living in London with 2 kids is likely to be far wealthier than many many others - although their wealth will be measured not just on income, but on quality of life (presumably happy with 2 kids??), decent living conditions etc etc. In that case, then they could be considered far richer than most.

At the end of the day, 80k is a very significant salary by almost anyone's standards. If someone on this level of money chooses to live in an expensive area and have children etc, then yes, I would say they are rich and have very rich lives - they just might not have the disposable pound notes of others. If the vast majority of the country (or world even) see that person and aspire to what they have and consider them rich, then in all reality, they probably are.....

[boltonboris]

What if somebody was earning £80k but had lets say, 2 kids to support and put through nursery/school - Are they rich?

They are better off than the vast majority of people with 2 kids to support aren't they?

Also under the Labour tax proposals they're not defining £80K income as "rich". They're just using it as the level at which earnings over it you pay an extra 5p tax in the pound. So its only when you earn over £80K.

Doesn't make them rich and being 'better off than others' doesn't mean you should be taxed more

[BWFC_Insane]

What if somebody was earning £80k but had lets say, 2 kids to support and put through nursery/school - Are they rich?

They are better off than the vast majority of people with 2 kids to support aren't they?

Also under the Labour tax proposals they're not defining £80K income as "rich". They're just using it as the level at which earnings over it you pay an extra 5p tax in the pound. So its only when you earn over £80K.

Doesn't make them rich and being 'better off than others' doesn't mean you should be taxed more

Rich is a relative term, to the vast majority of people they are rich. In the top 5% of earners is not.

Doesn't mean you should be taxed more. You're not. Your earnings over a certain point are taxed more. Why? Because we need to pay for the NHS and our public services.

Now its entirely reasonable to disagree with that form of progressive taxation. Though it should be noted it is the form of taxation we have and that all major parties propose to have. All Labour are proposing is re-adjusting the various levels at which higher rates kick in.

I'll be honest, as a higher rate taxpayer now, I truly, truly find it mind mindbogglingly ridiculous that anyone earning over £80K would be churlish enough to complain at a 45% tax rate for earnings over that amount. That is my honest view. I mean its not like we're asking for a 60% rate like they do in Denmark (although I'd advocate such a rate for the top band).

Tax is relative, wealth is relative. Everyone pays the same tax on the same amount of earnings. It means that your wealth is relative. The money that is paid as tax isn't something you are losing relative to your neighbour.

I will never ever understand why people have this issue.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The difference is that Scandinavia is a high wage, high tax economy and can afford it's social policies. On the other hand we're a short termist low wage, stealth tax economy that prefers to invest in nuclear weapons and privatisation than the well being and long term future of our country. We need politicians that are pragmatic and seek to work for all of the country, rather than just for the rich or poor. Labour's plans will screw the middle earners and do little to tackle the rich, whilst the Tories screw everyone but the rich.

Indeed. But we should be aiming for Scandinavia. My god we should be.

Also think its too simplistic to say they'll screw middle earners. Having a properly funded NHS benefits everyone. As does investing in new industries and moving our economy away from being dominated by financial services located in London.

Ideally we'd have a pragmatic centre left option willing to do this, whilst also protecting the vulnerable in our society and halting the ever widening gaps in society.

We don't and that sucks. I do think we're long overdue some socialism to redress the balance right now.

Scandinavia ain't a place. It's a region. There is as much divergence between Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark as there is between UK, France, Spain and Germany.
Sweden, which I suspect you are conflating with Scandinavia, is experiencing unprecedented levels of 'societal' pressures at the moment. It might be worthwhile waiting a little longer before we want to start apeing where Sweden's headed.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The difference is that Scandinavia is a high wage, high tax economy and can afford it's social policies. On the other hand we're a short termist low wage, stealth tax economy that prefers to invest in nuclear weapons and privatisation than the well being and long term future of our country. We need politicians that are pragmatic and seek to work for all of the country, rather than just for the rich or poor. Labour's plans will screw the middle earners and do little to tackle the rich, whilst the Tories screw everyone but the rich.

Indeed. But we should be aiming for Scandinavia. My god we should be.

Also think its too simplistic to say they'll screw middle earners. Having a properly funded NHS benefits everyone. As does investing in new industries and moving our economy away from being dominated by financial services located in London.

Ideally we'd have a pragmatic centre left option willing to do this, whilst also protecting the vulnerable in our society and halting the ever widening gaps in society.

We don't and that sucks. I do think we're long overdue some socialism to redress the balance right now.

The problem is that McDonnell thinks that a high earner is someone on 85k plus. Now I know that might seem a lot of money to many people, but it's not when you consider that the inequality really is about people that earn more than that for just farting. Tax should be fair to everyone and it tends to screw the people in the middle the most - not rich enough for all the fancy accountants and their schemes. Often these are the people that have to make a lot of sacrifices in order to make that salary, and whilst that is their choice, it doesn't mean they should pay disproportionately more than everyone else.

I agree that we should look to take the best bits of the Scandinavian model and ensure everyone has access to a good basic level of living, but not to the point of making it a lifestyle choice. I want everyone to have access to a good education, healthcare and housing. It's then up to them what they do with it.

45p tax on 80K is hardly some radical hike though. This is where the exaggeration comes in.

Frankly if I earned in excess of £80K I'd be more than happy to pay the 45p rate. In fact I'd be happy on my salary that is a bit below that to do so.

The point is that the person on 80k is already paying a lot of tax in proportion to their income. The person earning a couple of million is paying proportionately a lot less in many cases, yet can afford to buy somewhere reasonable to live in say London, where as 80k person can afford a shoe box in outer Mongolia Essex. What needs to be done is to build a proper economy where people earn a proper wage and therefore pay more tax, along with proper taxation for the highest earners.

Sorry but adding 5p in the pound on earnings above £80K in no way is crippling. And £80K can only be described as a very, very, very healthy wage. Its almost 4* the average wage in the UK.

You can only really tackle house prices by building more houses.

We also desperately need to make our country and economy far less London centric, take some demand out of the system.

We need more houses like we need a hole in the head.
On my street, where I bought my house 17 years ago, there were 24 families, 12 couples, and 4 individuals living in 44 houses (which includes a PO, a bookshop, a pub, and an tiny engineering works).
Today there are still the four businesses but the rest is transformed to 2 families, 26 couples, and 12 holiday cottages. All but one of the twelve holiday cottages were bought and owned by outsiders from London/the South.

[BWFC_Insane]

The difference is that Scandinavia is a high wage, high tax economy and can afford it's social policies. On the other hand we're a short termist low wage, stealth tax economy that prefers to invest in nuclear weapons and privatisation than the well being and long term future of our country. We need politicians that are pragmatic and seek to work for all of the country, rather than just for the rich or poor. Labour's plans will screw the middle earners and do little to tackle the rich, whilst the Tories screw everyone but the rich.

Indeed. But we should be aiming for Scandinavia. My god we should be.

Also think its too simplistic to say they'll screw middle earners. Having a properly funded NHS benefits everyone. As does investing in new industries and moving our economy away from being dominated by financial services located in London.

Ideally we'd have a pragmatic centre left option willing to do this, whilst also protecting the vulnerable in our society and halting the ever widening gaps in society.

We don't and that sucks. I do think we're long overdue some socialism to redress the balance right now.

The problem is that McDonnell thinks that a high earner is someone on 85k plus. Now I know that might seem a lot of money to many people, but it's not when you consider that the inequality really is about people that earn more than that for just farting. Tax should be fair to everyone and it tends to screw the people in the middle the most - not rich enough for all the fancy accountants and their schemes. Often these are the people that have to make a lot of sacrifices in order to make that salary, and whilst that is their choice, it doesn't mean they should pay disproportionately more than everyone else.

I agree that we should look to take the best bits of the Scandinavian model and ensure everyone has access to a good basic level of living, but not to the point of making it a lifestyle choice. I want everyone to have access to a good education, healthcare and housing. It's then up to them what they do with it.

45p tax on 80K is hardly some radical hike though. This is where the exaggeration comes in.

Frankly if I earned in excess of £80K I'd be more than happy to pay the 45p rate. In fact I'd be happy on my salary that is a bit below that to do so.

The point is that the person on 80k is already paying a lot of tax in proportion to their income. The person earning a couple of million is paying proportionately a lot less in many cases, yet can afford to buy somewhere reasonable to live in say London, where as 80k person can afford a shoe box in outer Mongolia Essex. What needs to be done is to build a proper economy where people earn a proper wage and therefore pay more tax, along with proper taxation for the highest earners.

Sorry but adding 5p in the pound on earnings above £80K in no way is crippling. And £80K can only be described as a very, very, very healthy wage. Its almost 4* the average wage in the UK.

You can only really tackle house prices by building more houses.

We also desperately need to make our country and economy far less London centric, take some demand out of the system.

We need more houses like we need a hole in the head.
On my street, where I bought my house 17 years ago, there were 24 families, 12 couples, and 4 individuals living in 44 houses (which includes a PO, a bookshop, a pub, and an tiny engineering works).
Today there are still the four businesses but the rest is transformed to 2 families, 26 couples, and 12 holiday cottages. All but one of the twelve holiday cottages were bought and owned by outsiders from London/the South.

We might not need more houses where you live. But there are areas of the country where buying a house is ridiculously difficult and expensive. The best way to solve those issues is to manage demand and increase supply.