THE RICH KINNOCK CLAN

We have seen the speed with which wealth leaves this increasingly endangered country. London has borne the brunt of the non-dom exodus with every economic sector hard hit.

Now the failed windbag Lord Kinnock want to put a wealth tax on those idiotic enough wishing to stay. Love or loathe the rich they create dynamic economies.

This is why cities like Milan, Madrid and Lisbon are luring our rich entrepreneurs

A wealth tax won’t hurt the windbag. He has never had a proper job and garners a pension and income of over £140,000 a year: a good chunk of which is tax-free

This sort of freeloading runs in the family. Stephen Kinnock and his wife also live off the poor bloody taxpayer

Post Views: 26

30 responses to “THE RICH KINNOCK CLAN”

Tax ’em.

July 8, 2025

What have the so called wealth creators done to stimulate economic growth in this country over the last 15 years?

If they had made a better fist of boosting the economic output with their entrepreneurial spirit, the wealth tax would not be on the cards.

The wealth creators are those who work for shit wages.

Equitable
July 8, 2025
Tax’em stop being thick….do some research(if you are capable) and see the number of very rich industrial families who pay vast amounts in tax and provide employment. What have you ever done for the economy?
Reply
Terence Malpas
July 9, 2025
Work for shit wages in the public sector? More than likely. Successful private enterprise pays well but then you have never worked in that sector?
Reply
1. Anonymous
  July 9, 2025
  Oh yes I have worked in the private sector. I worked in a Solicitors’ practice, and have also worked on freelance management contracts in the private sector.
  I have also worked for Sainsbury’s, Harrods and in an M&S franchise.
  Reply

Anonymous

July 8, 2025

Former Tory Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, disclosed his Tax Return during the election campaign last year. It transpired that amount of tax that Sunak paid equated to the same percentage of his income as that of a nurse on the payroll at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital paid as a percentage of her income.

The wealthy have got wealthier in this country and the poor have got poorer over the last forty years. As the wealthy have done so nicely for so long, it is now time for the super rich to pay their fair share.

It would only affect 365 people out of 70 million.

July 8, 2025

If the government taxed the wealth of 365 billionaires in this country at 70%, it would clear sovereign debt.

Anonymous
July 8, 2025
When the Thatcher Government cut social security benefits by introducing a principle of less eligibility in the Social Security Act 1986, they got away with it because most people were not on social security.
The Whig Government got away with the same thing with the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 because most people were not Poor Law Relief.
The Labour Government will get away with a wealth tax on the billionaires today because most people are not billionaires.
Reply
xxxxx
July 8, 2025
which would quickly rebuild as the government would continue to indulge the 9 million dependent on handouts. Face facts. Most of the 1.9 million out of work don’t want to work. Taxing the rich to get out of a long term intractable problem won’t work. If I was rich I would not stay. Bloody socialist mess
Reply
1. “We all drag aroundf the chains of the past without a sense of history”
  July 9, 2025
  Interesting, xxxxx.
  Consider this, then.
  The manifest reason for paying social security benefits is to provide those who need the payment with a modicum of economic welfare and security to live the life of a civilised human being. Very few people really think the poor should starve and, I suspect, you are one of them.
  Whenever you hear talk of state benefits, ask yourself this question. Who benefits?
  The answer is the very wealthy, yes, I know you don’t believe it but it is, I assure you, true.
  Whenever social security benefits are devised and paid, there are always a number of “hidden” less obvious beneficiaries. “We all drag around the chains of the past without a sense of history.” However, the past shapes the future. For example, consider the Liberal Government’s welfare reforms between 1906 to 1911 and in particular Lloyd George’s People’s Budget of 1909 which attacked the interests of the very wealthy. History does not repeat itself but the economic conjunctures, particularly the ones of 1909 may repeat themselves today.
  Creating a National Insurance Scheme for the men in six heavy industrial trades in 1911 was as much about a drive for “National Efficiency” because a World War was envisaged as it was about providing the men in those six heavy industrial trades with National Insurance benefits so that a man off work sick could see the doctor, obtain a small benefit to keep the wolf from the door and, return to work quicker and healthier to perform that heavy manual Labour. The man’s wife and children had no access to a GP under this scheme, they had to approach the Workhouse Infirmary for any healthcare they needed. You might think that restoring the Guardians of the Poor Law would be good today but I fear they would be very expensive for the wealthy.
  The payment of the first old age pensions in 1909 were as much to do with reducing the actuarial deficits incurred by the friendly societies as they were about providing a large number of people over the age of seventy who were in penury with a few shillings a week. The payment of the first old age pension in 1909 took the financial pressures off the many friendly societies who were going broke by paying sickness benefits to the elderly which had become disguised as an old age pension. Government did not want to discourage self help, mutuality and thrift amongst the respectable poor who had paid in to friendly societies instead of going to the Guardians of the Poor Law.
  To come up to date in 2025. The “latent” less obvious reason for paying social security benefits is the reciprocal of the “manifest” reason mentioned above: it is to stop those on the breadline from resorting to violence with attacks property with a small “p” if social security were abolished. “Paying handouts to the 1.9 million unemployed” is to stop those who would be destitute without their state benefits from committing some very nasty crimes. For example, burgling other people’s homes. If a burglar is going to break in to someone’s home because they are desperate they might as well do it in a rich area and show the well off wealth creator how clever they are in breaching the expensive security system. Similarly, there would be a massive increase in violent street crimes with street robberies with dangerous weapons if there were no state benefits. There would also be a massive rise in shoplifting thefts which would affect the prices paid by the wealthy and even the modestly comfortable.
  I strongly suspect that you would not like the dramatic increase in violent attacks on people and further attacks on property with a small “p” if benefits did not exist.
  Reply
  1. Anonymous
    July 9, 2025
    Years ago, I came across a bloke who had served in the Royal Navy and also held down a managerial job in civvy street for a number of years. He made a lifestyle choice to bum on the dole, as a lone parent, after requesting voluntary redundancy at work. I asked him what he would do if the Social was abolished and he told me that he would go “housebreaking.” He was an intelligent, feckless, alcoholic who was more than capable of getting a decent job with good pay but a life on the Social was the choice he made. The possibility of imprisonment for housebreaking was no deterrent and something he would take on the chin. Paying someone like him benefits does have its compensations for all of us.
    Reply
    1. Anonymous
      July 9, 2025
      I forgot to mention that man whom I mentioned who chose “to bum on the dole as a lone parent” was an admirer of Mrs. Thatcher. He told me that social security was paying the interest on his mortgage every month and that when his son was off hand, he would sell his house and start a small business. As soon as his son was 18, he was made to find lodgings and the social security bum sold his house, moved away and, started a business. I don’t know how well he did at business but I always hoped he would fall flat on his face. I always thought he was the sh*t on sh*t’s shoes.
      This same bum told me that I was a fool (in much less polite language) for working for next to nothing. I was at the station each morning to catch 05.54 train to London to start work in a West End Hotel for dire wages.
  2. xxxx
    July 9, 2025
    You are incorrect
    The manifest reason for paying social security benefits is to provide those who need the payment with a modicum of economic welfare and security to live the life of a civilised human being. Very few people really think the poor should starve and, I suspect, you are one of them.
    I am not. If someone chooses not to work then I have no interest in supporting them at the expense of the deserving poor
    Reply
    1. Anonymous
      July 9, 2025
      Beveridge ruled out the concept of the “deserving poor” back in 1942 in his famous Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services. Beveridge said, “Desert is not a basis on which anyone should get a social security benefit or entitlement.” “Need is the criteria.” No Government since 1945 has ever made “desert” the criteria for qualifying for benefits or entitlements.
      The view you express is a customary one amongst the lower middle classes and some working class people. David Hume said, “Custom is the great guide of life” and customary considerations are an unavoidable consideration in the formulation of Government policy. Those who “choose not to work” would degenerate in to appalling criminality if their social security payments were stopped. I am sure you would not like it if your house was burgled with your privacy violated or a member of your family was threatened with a knife in the street for what they had in their pocket. Social Security has many functions and stabilising civil society is one of them.
  3. xxxxx
    July 9, 2025
    You do spout nonsense. So, in your estimation we pay social security as a form of protection money? We need to put the fear of God into that part of the population who think they can piss on us. And give us a rest from your trawling thru history….tedious….oh, I went to a top public school and I am second cousin to a rather sad earl!
    Reply
    1. Facts outrank dogma.
      July 9, 2025
      No.
      Social Security benefits are paid for a variety of reasons some of which I have mentioned. The former Tory Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, referred to benefits being paid to workers to top up the starvation wages paid by profiteering employers who ran their business empire on the backs of the tax payer. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
      It is ignorant to divorce history from any economic analysis as events of the past shape the future. Hayek, the Libertarian, Free Market, Right Wing Economist wrote The Road to Serfdom in 1944. Forty years later, it became the economic blue print for Mrs. Thatcher’s Government. By the way, I do not need to trawl through history, the facts which I have set out are in my head. I learned them nearly forty years ago and understand Economic History.
Simple Simon
July 8, 2025
Why not 95%? Or even confiscate their stuff?
Reply

Emma

July 8, 2025

We should tax the rich out of existence. We don’t need them in our country. The UK government can borrow money. We should get rid of all the rich spongers

Not telling

July 8, 2025

Yeah, that Bamford family pay a billion a year in tax. We should squuze more from them

Hello

July 8, 2025

The point being made in this blog was a simple one…. Capital moves at speed. If you start targeting the rich because the government cannot balance its books they will up sticks and go. We are seeing this happen constantly. The rich can move anywhere and then who will pay your benefits?

Patriotism.
July 8, 2025
The “simple point” you make is indeed simple!
UK Government can change the law and tax the billionaires on all of their global assets. The USA Federal Government already does it. Do you remember Boris Johnson, who a US Citizen, being indignant that the US Tax Authorities came after him for the tax on the Capital Gain from the sale of his London home? He said that he would renounce his US citizenship and they could “whistle”- he paid it alright.
If the wealth tax was pursued from the get start when Labour got in, we would be able to abolish Inheritance Tax for those who have more modest wealth. To tax those who die with one pound over £ 325,000 at 40% is pernicious. Inheritance Tax only raises £9 billion a year.
If the Wealth Tax on billionaires had been implemented already:-
we would never have had to consider abolishing the Winter Fuel Payment for OAP’s,
we would never have had to put VAT on private school fees for people like EDC who skimped and scraped to send their kids to public schools and never had to consider changing the PIP eligibility criteria.
At one time, assets in banks in Switzerland and Liechtenstein (and other tax havens) were beyond the reach of the UK Tax authorities- that is no longer the case. The Blair Government set up the Lichtenstein Disclosure Facility which allowed those who had salted indecent amounts of money away in offshore tax havens to come clean in return for paying the UK Government the interest that should have been paid if the investments were properly reported in these wealthy people’s tax returns. In return for a modest penalty, these great wealth creators avoided prosecution and the slop bucket in one of Her Majesty’s Hotels.
No one needs billions. Government has had exceptional expenditure with the pandemic and the banking crisis. The billionaires who love this country so much for making them so rich need to be patriotic and do the right thing so that the likes of them can continue being entrepreneurial.
Reply
1. The Realist
  July 8, 2025
  What you ‘simply’ fail to appreciate is that most of the billionaire targets probably don’t have UK nationality so efforts to tax their worldwide assets will most likely fail.
  You say no one needs billions….do you imagine that these people keep billions on their bank accounts. The wealth of a billionaire generally comprise the businesses they run. This country is bust because it has millions of the population who are net takers. Taxing the rich will just plaster over the real problem of a non productive nation. 40% of the workforce now work directly or indirectly for the state in its many shapes. The state needs to butt out of our lives and stop wasting money on projects like HS2
  Reply
  1. Tax the rich!
    July 8, 2025
    NO. I understand all the obstacles you put up but they are not insurmountable ones in the way you would have us all believe.
    The rich have done very nicely in this Country with its enterprising tax regime over the last forty years. They have got richer and the poor have got poorer – there is no denying that. If the UK income tax regime were progressive, they would not have increased their wealth so dramatically since the mid 1980’s. Now is the time for them to pay a bit more, they have had it too good for too long at the expense of those who toil in proper jobs – road sweeping, driving buses and the like.
    Now is the time for the ever so wealthy to show their patriotism for the United Kingdom.
    The Revenue is able to identify the 365 British Nationals with billions who will have to realise just some of their assets to pay their fair shares. If they dip and dive, as some of them will, then they are parasites: no different to the millions you describe as net takers
    It is a pity that Labour has boxed itself in over income tax. They really ought to create a progressive tax regime where a nurse on £34, 000 at the Chelsea and Westminster no longer pays the same percentage of her income in tax as the ever so prosperous Rishi Sunak with his high income.
    Sorry, you find the wealth tax so egregious. I fear you won’t like it, but life is a bitch like that. You could write to Joe Powell MP to find out his view.
    Reply
    1. Mr Sensible
      July 8, 2025
      It’s a tax that won’t affect me but it will affect us all when the real wealth exodus starts and no one left to support types like you!
    2. Mr Obvious
      July 8, 2025
      I am a pragmatist. You hate rich successful billionaires who all pay taxes. You just want to skin them so they can keep you comfortable. Get real. There will be an exodus of the rich and then no one to take care of you. Life will be a real bitch for you then!

Not moaning

July 8, 2025

I have chosen not to work as I don’t see anything out there that looks suitable.
These rich people got lucky and should be happy to help folks like me. People say there are 9 million on benefits. To me there’s nothing wrong here. If you wanna work good for you I like my life

Anonymous
July 8, 2025
Mr Obvious,
I pay my own way. I have always had to do that. I ask no one for anything
Reply

The People’s Budget of 2025

July 8, 2025

The trouble is:-

(i) Middle England pays for everything.
(ii). By comparison, the wealthy billionaires pay very little in terms of Income Tax and Inheritance Tax. The percentage of their income that goes to HMRC in Income Tax is negligible.
(iii) The poor have nothing with which to pay and, 40% of them may well be net takers. This 40% have generally worked but not been as lucky as the very wealthy. Some of them will have worked for the billionaires who had the sweet of their brows.

I bought my house outside London thirty five years ago. I paid my mortgage every month for twenty five years from my salary which was taxed.

My small house is now worth about £ 400, 000. When I go HMRC will tax my estate at 40% for every pound over the Inheritance Tax threshold of £ 325,000. I only have my state pension and about five thousand pounds in savings. This means that if I die tonight, I shall give Rachel Reeves a nice present amounting to £ 32,000.

The billionaires usually own a number of properties. With clever legal advice, they can declare one of their properties to HMRC as their domicile that is, the home in which they live, day in and day out. They can create Trusts of all their other properties and provided the Trust exists for seven years before their death, all of their properties except for the one in which they live are taken out of the Inheritance Tax calculation.

Mrs Thatcher said she wanted “To look after these wealth creators. People who never asked the state for their healthcare, their children’s education, never come to the state for their housing or anything else. Thatcherism was about protecting “these very valued people and when they had a bit left over, they could give some to the less fortunate.”

The Country is in a mess. It is now time to create a different settlement.

Bang on
July 8, 2025
The country has been messed up by socialism and unionism supported by Conservatism. The brits have become feckless and lazy
Reply
1. You will live to vote for Reform.
  July 9, 2025
  I should not worry too much about the imposition of a wealth tax. It is likely to be fair rather than disastrous for the many millionaires who might be required to pay a bit more. The millionaires and the billionaires will still be very wealthy.
  Reply
  1. Private
    July 9, 2025
    Reform will be in power soon
    Reply

FTHN: From the Hornets Nest

Get new posts by email:

30 responses to “THE RICH KINNOCK CLAN”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply