FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Society and the top 1%
Society and the top 1%
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And to add... Maybe we should stop buying too much merchandise and like football kits. Stop buying them until they release just one design every 2 years or something as die hard supporters buy every home and away kit costing shit loads! It's us as a society making these people super rich but if we decrease spending on, let's be honest, useless shit, then they wouldn't be so rich, you'd have more money and everyone benefits. You just won't have the latest phone as your phone is a year old, you really don't need to upgrade a phone every year! Like I said just a thought lol" We stop spending on football then the best players won’t come here. As much as people want to believe it Haaland didn’t sign for City just because his dad played there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And to add... Maybe we should stop buying too much merchandise and like football kits. Stop buying them until they release just one design every 2 years or something as die hard supporters buy every home and away kit costing shit loads! It's us as a society making these people super rich but if we decrease spending on, let's be honest, useless shit, then they wouldn't be so rich, you'd have more money and everyone benefits. You just won't have the latest phone as your phone is a year old, you really don't need to upgrade a phone every year! Like I said just a thought lol We stop spending on football then the best players won’t come here. As much as people want to believe it Haaland didn’t sign for City just because his dad played there." I meant world society. Not just UK. If less was spent on football then the footballers wouldn't get paid so much and they wouldnt be worth so much. Just need to stop wasting money on things you don't need. I have a Samsung A5 2017 phone and it works ok. I've made the best cat video on YouTube with this phone lol. Ok maybe I should upgrade after 6 years, I haven't had it 6 years bought it new about 3 years ago, the backs fallen off and I need more space as apps are larger now. That's a need to upgrade not a want. People like to buy the new phone etc every year just because it's the new phone! Nothing wrong with the old one from last year! Thus is what's making the rich richer not tax cuts! Hoarding also is a problem. People have too much stuff just in their homes nkt doing anything. Tucked away in cupboard gatjering dust or in garages. Sell stuff you never use and someone else will, saves them buying new and saved some cash and you've made some. That'll stop people more people buying new as more items are being sold privately. I'm staying at my friends house now and I've notice 4 laptops, 3 digital cameras, tablets, about 10 phones not older than 5 years, just on shelves and in drawers. I wasn't snooping I was looking for a controller he said was in one of the drawers. That's another thing he's got 2 ps4s? He lives alone btw, there so much stuff here just going to waste when someone else would make good use of. I'm doing my part anyway, I buy when I need and I rarely buy new unless it's a tent, shoes, sleeping bag, clothes I get from charity shops. I'm not saying don't buy nice things just see that they see you coming. Just have a look around your house with a pen and paper and find things you never use or never will again and write down how much you'd think you'd get for it on marketplaces and see the total lol. I think some of you would be surprised   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And to add... Maybe we should stop buying too much merchandise and like football kits. Stop buying them until they release just one design every 2 years or something as die hard supporters buy every home and away kit costing shit loads! It's us as a society making these people super rich but if we decrease spending on, let's be honest, useless shit, then they wouldn't be so rich, you'd have more money and everyone benefits. You just won't have the latest phone as your phone is a year old, you really don't need to upgrade a phone every year! Like I said just a thought lol We stop spending on football then the best players won’t come here. As much as people want to believe it Haaland didn’t sign for City just because his dad played there. I meant world society. Not just UK. If less was spent on football then the footballers wouldn't get paid so much and they wouldnt be worth so much. Just need to stop wasting money on things you don't need. I have a Samsung A5 2017 phone and it works ok. I've made the best cat video on YouTube with this phone lol. Ok maybe I should upgrade after 6 years, I haven't had it 6 years bought it new about 3 years ago, the backs fallen off and I need more space as apps are larger now. That's a need to upgrade not a want. People like to buy the new phone etc every year just because it's the new phone! Nothing wrong with the old one from last year! Thus is what's making the rich richer not tax cuts! Hoarding also is a problem. People have too much stuff just in their homes nkt doing anything. Tucked away in cupboard gatjering dust or in garages. Sell stuff you never use and someone else will, saves them buying new and saved some cash and you've made some. That'll stop people more people buying new as more items are being sold privately. I'm staying at my friends house now and I've notice 4 laptops, 3 digital cameras, tablets, about 10 phones not older than 5 years, just on shelves and in drawers. I wasn't snooping I was looking for a controller he said was in one of the drawers. That's another thing he's got 2 ps4s? He lives alone btw, there so much stuff here just going to waste when someone else would make good use of. I'm doing my part anyway, I buy when I need and I rarely buy new unless it's a tent, shoes, sleeping bag, clothes I get from charity shops. I'm not saying don't buy nice things just see that they see you coming. Just have a look around your house with a pen and paper and find things you never use or never will again and write down how much you'd think you'd get for it on marketplaces and see the total lol. I think some of you would be surprised "But don't we want people to buy stuff to grow the economy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You've certainly made me smile this morning! My Samsung is even older than yours! Does absolutely everything ... " You couldn’t get it to russell up a Sunday roast for me could you. Cheers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You've certainly made me smile this morning! My Samsung is even older than yours! Does absolutely everything ... " Yeah it's fine lol. I have Call Of Duty Mobile install that's 12GB  I have to delete apps to install apps and reinstall apps when I've finished with the other apps. Im keeping COD | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And to add... Maybe we should stop buying too much merchandise and like football kits. Stop buying them until they release just one design every 2 years or something as die hard supporters buy every home and away kit costing shit loads! It's us as a society making these people super rich but if we decrease spending on, let's be honest, useless shit, then they wouldn't be so rich, you'd have more money and everyone benefits. You just won't have the latest phone as your phone is a year old, you really don't need to upgrade a phone every year! Like I said just a thought lol We stop spending on football then the best players won’t come here. As much as people want to believe it Haaland didn’t sign for City just because his dad played there. I meant world society. Not just UK. If less was spent on football then the footballers wouldn't get paid so much and they wouldnt be worth so much. Just need to stop wasting money on things you don't need. I have a Samsung A5 2017 phone and it works ok. I've made the best cat video on YouTube with this phone lol. Ok maybe I should upgrade after 6 years, I haven't had it 6 years bought it new about 3 years ago, the backs fallen off and I need more space as apps are larger now. That's a need to upgrade not a want. People like to buy the new phone etc every year just because it's the new phone! Nothing wrong with the old one from last year! Thus is what's making the rich richer not tax cuts! Hoarding also is a problem. People have too much stuff just in their homes nkt doing anything. Tucked away in cupboard gatjering dust or in garages. Sell stuff you never use and someone else will, saves them buying new and saved some cash and you've made some. That'll stop people more people buying new as more items are being sold privately. I'm staying at my friends house now and I've notice 4 laptops, 3 digital cameras, tablets, about 10 phones not older than 5 years, just on shelves and in drawers. I wasn't snooping I was looking for a controller he said was in one of the drawers. That's another thing he's got 2 ps4s? He lives alone btw, there so much stuff here just going to waste when someone else would make good use of. I'm doing my part anyway, I buy when I need and I rarely buy new unless it's a tent, shoes, sleeping bag, clothes I get from charity shops. I'm not saying don't buy nice things just see that they see you coming. Just have a look around your house with a pen and paper and find things you never use or never will again and write down how much you'd think you'd get for it on marketplaces and see the total lol. I think some of you would be surprised
But don't we want people to buy stuff to grow the economy?"Yeah but stuff from each other will grow the economy more. Saving each other money and making each other money instead of making the rich money. I reckon if we stopped buying new for a few years and recycle the rich won't get richer and they'll be forced to spend money in their banks putting it back into the community, All their money is doing now is growing. Then you can say people will lose their jobs in manufacturing, it's mostly machines and robots now making phones etc. Turn them off and save power. This is fairyland talk I know as it could never happen but the logic is there somewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And to add... Maybe we should stop buying too much merchandise and like football kits. Stop buying them until they release just one design every 2 years or something as die hard supporters buy every home and away kit costing shit loads! It's us as a society making these people super rich but if we decrease spending on, let's be honest, useless shit, then they wouldn't be so rich, you'd have more money and everyone benefits. You just won't have the latest phone as your phone is a year old, you really don't need to upgrade a phone every year! Like I said just a thought lol We stop spending on football then the best players won’t come here. As much as people want to believe it Haaland didn’t sign for City just because his dad played there. I meant world society. Not just UK. If less was spent on football then the footballers wouldn't get paid so much and they wouldnt be worth so much. Just need to stop wasting money on things you don't need. I have a Samsung A5 2017 phone and it works ok. I've made the best cat video on YouTube with this phone lol. Ok maybe I should upgrade after 6 years, I haven't had it 6 years bought it new about 3 years ago, the backs fallen off and I need more space as apps are larger now. That's a need to upgrade not a want. People like to buy the new phone etc every year just because it's the new phone! Nothing wrong with the old one from last year! Thus is what's making the rich richer not tax cuts! Hoarding also is a problem. People have too much stuff just in their homes nkt doing anything. Tucked away in cupboard gatjering dust or in garages. Sell stuff you never use and someone else will, saves them buying new and saved some cash and you've made some. That'll stop people more people buying new as more items are being sold privately. I'm staying at my friends house now and I've notice 4 laptops, 3 digital cameras, tablets, about 10 phones not older than 5 years, just on shelves and in drawers. I wasn't snooping I was looking for a controller he said was in one of the drawers. That's another thing he's got 2 ps4s? He lives alone btw, there so much stuff here just going to waste when someone else would make good use of. I'm doing my part anyway, I buy when I need and I rarely buy new unless it's a tent, shoes, sleeping bag, clothes I get from charity shops. I'm not saying don't buy nice things just see that they see you coming. Just have a look around your house with a pen and paper and find things you never use or never will again and write down how much you'd think you'd get for it on marketplaces and see the total lol. I think some of you would be surprised
But don't we want people to buy stuff to grow the economy? Yeah but stuff from each other will grow the economy more. Saving each other money and making each other money instead of making the rich money. I reckon if we stopped buying new for a few years and recycle the rich won't get richer and they'll be forced to spend money in their banks putting it back into the community, All their money is doing now is growing. Then you can say people will lose their jobs in manufacturing, it's mostly machines and robots now making phones etc. Turn them off and save power.
This is fairyland talk I know as it could never happen but the logic is there somewhere. "If nobody’s buying new that could fuck quite a lot of businesses , businesses that employ people and give them a wage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People like to buy the new phone etc every year just because it's the new phone! Nothing wrong with the old one from last year! Thus is what's making the rich richer not tax cuts! " Whilst you are right, these tax cuts are doing nothing to help the situation. They no help at all to those on the lowest incomes, whilst whilst adding to the already healthy bank accounts of those who are not effected by the "Energy Crisis". The only sensible option to ease the situation was to subsidise wholesale energy, and return the original price cap. Holding prices at a manageable level would help everyone, including business & industry, without propping up the energy companies' massive profits. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 1p off income tax was a cynical smoke screen, about 10yrs ago the 50% top rate dropped to 45% but they then lowered the 40% pick up to £40k so caught many more middle earners. By freezing the lower £12500 tax free rate & 40% position more low earners are paying more tax yet the high earners constantly get big reductions. Labour are unelectable but the Tories don't deserve a vote, we are in the position the USA were in when Trump got in. No one worth voting for. " Well at least you didn't say "they're all as bad as each other". With Lizzy Dripping and KamiKwasi redefining 'unelectable' almost hourly, we need a government asap that will reverse the horrors of this one, as far as their scorched earth policy will allow. So Labour are very electable now, much as I'd prefer a full commitment to PR. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When China was emerging from the misery of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping recognised that an economy needed billionaires to drive spending and prosperity for everybody. Nowadays, China is second only to the US in billionaires and will soon be the world's No. 1 economy." Billionaires don't drive the economy, they profit from it, they are not SPENDING their massive pots of money just hoarding it. I have no issues with people making a profit, but they shouldn't do it by avoiding propper taxes and paying wages that need state pensions to make them a living wage. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle down economics isn't real, when society is founded on the reverse, to pump up our money to the wealthy. Everything is done to enable and perpetuate this. Less attention to the wealthy won't reverse it here but will give them more secrecy about it. I agree that there's too much exhalation of them. The wealthy are disproportionately trashing the planet for our ancestors. A revolutionary process is needed to turn things around ASAP. " When we inevitably have a nuclear war that will level the field rest assured | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle down economics isn't real, when society is founded on the reverse, to pump up our money to the wealthy. Everything is done to enable and perpetuate this. Less attention to the wealthy won't reverse it here but will give them more secrecy about it. I agree that there's too much exhalation of them. The wealthy are disproportionately trashing the planet for our ancestors. A revolutionary process is needed to turn things around ASAP. " It's shameful they're trotting out trickle down economics, a concept that has been debunked as nonsense decades ago. They really do think we're stupid, which is probably the most frustrating part. I'm sick of having these absolutely useless "leaders" forced upon us, with each one doing more damage than the last | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When China was emerging from the misery of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping recognised that an economy needed billionaires to drive spending and prosperity for everybody. Nowadays, China is second only to the US in billionaires and will soon be the world's No. 1 economy. Billionaires don't drive the economy, they profit from it, they are not SPENDING their massive pots of money just hoarding it. I have no issues with people making a profit, but they shouldn't do it by avoiding propper taxes and paying wages that need state pensions to make them a living wage. Cal" They do both in fact. The word 'profit' seems to have become a dirty word, but without businesses making profits there are no taxes, no reinvestment, no research, no dividends for investors (mostly pension funds). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When China was emerging from the misery of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping recognised that an economy needed billionaires to drive spending and prosperity for everybody. Nowadays, China is second only to the US in billionaires and will soon be the world's No. 1 economy. Billionaires don't drive the economy, they profit from it, they are not SPENDING their massive pots of money just hoarding it. I have no issues with people making a profit, but they shouldn't do it by avoiding propper taxes and paying wages that need state pensions to make them a living wage. Cal They do both in fact. The word 'profit' seems to have become a dirty word, but without businesses making profits there are no taxes, no reinvestment, no research, no dividends for investors (mostly pension funds). " The issue I believe is that if you take 1 billion in profit, from a collective of working class people (a earning a modest living) they will all pay their fair share of tax If you give 1 person 1 billion, they don’t pay their fair share. They use every trick and loophole to avoid doing so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
ALL successful economies have actually been driven by the drive and entrepreneurialism of the “middle classes” ie the entrepreneurs who have set up businesses, invented products, created employment. A bit of reading about the industrial revolution will demonstrate that.
More recently the likes of Bezos and Gates started life as white collar “middle class/middle income entrepreneurs” and subsequently entered the super rich list.
The idea that only billionaires and millionaires drive innovation and economic success is completely flawed. The richest people in the world 20-30 years from now are currently unknowns tinkering away in their garages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You gotta love all these people who are not billionaires, or very likely no even millionaires, defending billionaires and millionaires and spouting and regurgitating the economic myths that have been perpetuated ad infinitum by the media that is owned by billionaires and millionaires!
ALL successful economies have actually been driven by the drive and entrepreneurialism of the “middle classes” ie the entrepreneurs who have set up businesses, invented products, created employment. A bit of reading about the industrial revolution will demonstrate that.
More recently the likes of Bezos and Gates started life as white collar “middle class/middle income entrepreneurs” and subsequently entered the super rich list.
The idea that only billionaires and millionaires drive innovation and economic success is completely flawed. The richest people in the world 20-30 years from now are currently unknowns tinkering away in their garages."There was a guy on TV this week who was also talking about innovation and entrepreneurs though did not specifically say middle income people. His point was about reducing , what he called distortion in the economy to increase new businesses and competition. Apparently certain rules and regulations make it very hard for new business to thrive and it protects the incumbent businesses. He says if these are changed then it allows more competition in the market. However he did point out that it will not be easy as those that benefit from the existing rules are very powerful and influential | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You gotta love all these people who are not billionaires, or very likely no even millionaires, defending billionaires and millionaires and spouting and regurgitating the economic myths that have been perpetuated ad infinitum by the media that is owned by billionaires and millionaires!
ALL successful economies have actually been driven by the drive and entrepreneurialism of the “middle classes” ie the entrepreneurs who have set up businesses, invented products, created employment. A bit of reading about the industrial revolution will demonstrate that.
More recently the likes of Bezos and Gates started life as white collar “middle class/middle income entrepreneurs” and subsequently entered the super rich list.
The idea that only billionaires and millionaires drive innovation and economic success is completely flawed. The richest people in the world 20-30 years from now are currently unknowns tinkering away in their garages.
There was a guy on TV this week who was also talking about innovation and entrepreneurs though did not specifically say middle income people. His point was about reducing , what he called distortion in the economy to increase new businesses and competition. Apparently certain rules and regulations make it very hard for new business to thrive and it protects the incumbent businesses. He says if these are changed then it allows more competition in the market. However he did point out that it will not be easy as those that benefit from the existing rules are very powerful and influential"Indeed. The best way to drive innovation, which in turn drives economic growth, is by incentivising R&D and start ups with tax breaks and long grace periods to recoup investment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Footballers and movie stars in the UK are not the 1% they are more like the 0.5% possibly less. There are online tools to check where you sit I think a lot of people would be surprised just who the 1% include. Yes the 1% are still wealthy, but they are also everyday people. They are also shopping locally and using local resturants." Yep! This thread seems to conflate celebrity/stardom with wealth. The wealthiest, most powerful, people in the UK are, for the most part, invisible or pretty much unknown to the majority of us. Which is precisely how they like it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wealthiest are not the 1% though. There are a good number of people out there living normal everyday lives who are the 1% I am part of that group according to online tools. But i would not say I'm mega rich" Agreed. The “1%” is just a proxy for what in reality is the “0.1%” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wealthiest are not the 1% though. There are a good number of people out there living normal everyday lives who are the 1% I am part of that group according to online tools. But i would not say I'm mega rich Agreed. The “1%” is just a proxy for what in reality is the “0.1%”" I believe that the 1% tag actually relates to the concept that the wealthiest 1% of the world's population owns 99% of the world's wealth... not that the entire 1% are all billionaires Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wealthiest are not the 1% though. There are a good number of people out there living normal everyday lives who are the 1% I am part of that group according to online tools. But i would not say I'm mega rich Agreed. The “1%” is just a proxy for what in reality is the “0.1%” I believe that the 1% tag actually relates to the concept that the wealthiest 1% of the world's population owns 99% of the world's wealth... not that the entire 1% are all billionaires Cal" Yep but it has been appropriated and misused as apparent in this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Trickle down" economics don't work, selfies or no selfies. No credible economist supports the theory and it isn't backed up empirically. What HAS been shown is that it deepens wealth inequality, which is concerning in a country with the worst social mobility of any developed nation." Couldn’t agree more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around…" That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. " Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. " . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax." There's an interesting article about it on the London School of Economics website. That gives you a good overview. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . " Lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . " Oh you sweet, sweet summer child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . " * Rishi Sunak and Akshata Murthy have entered the chat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . " That is amusing. Look up Panama Papers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think we need to change as a society regarding the rich and famous? I was thinking about this trickle down economics and thinking, maybe famous people and the wealthy would like to spend their cash in local towns, shops and restaurants if they wasn't hounded by the public and press. People moan about them going to fancy exclusive restaurants and going to shops the average person can't afford but maybe if we just left them alone and treat them like, well the humans that they are then they'd be spending their cash in local places more and there would be more money in the community instead of it going to the already rich. Even if that's not the case I feel we need to change how we treat these people. Fame has to go! It's just imprinted in us now to worship these people who are, don't get me wrong very talented, but to hound them in the streets for autographs and selfies is crazy! We need to encourage the rich to spend more in shops we go to but they can't go into towns, imagine walking around town and everyone stopping you? Be nice for a bit I suppose then you'd get pissed off with it and avoid going. Just an idea... " There's a confusion here between wealth and celebrity. Valuing celebrity and giving it a lot of media attention warps what people aspire to and is very negative. However, most of the wealthy are not celebrities. They never have been. I have no interest in "encouraging the wealthy to spend more money in shops". We shouldn't have to. They actually spend a small proportion of their wealth. Most is hoarded The best way to increase domestic spending is to "encourage", by which I mean "compel", them to pay those who work in the least we'll paid sectors better. The poor spend all of their money and nearly all locally. It will also mean that the state does not have to subsidise them as they are earning enough to live on and that doing "menial' jobs has their value recognised, which in turn means that people feel value and some pride in doing those jobs. Not the lie of "trickle down" BS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think we need to change as a society regarding the rich and famous? I was thinking about this trickle down economics and thinking, maybe famous people and the wealthy would like to spend their cash in local towns, shops and restaurants if they wasn't hounded by the public and press. People moan about them going to fancy exclusive restaurants and going to shops the average person can't afford but maybe if we just left them alone and treat them like, well the humans that they are then they'd be spending their cash in local places more and there would be more money in the community instead of it going to the already rich. Even if that's not the case I feel we need to change how we treat these people. Fame has to go! It's just imprinted in us now to worship these people who are, don't get me wrong very talented, but to hound them in the streets for autographs and selfies is crazy! We need to encourage the rich to spend more in shops we go to but they can't go into towns, imagine walking around town and everyone stopping you? Be nice for a bit I suppose then you'd get pissed off with it and avoid going. Just an idea... There's a confusion here between wealth and celebrity. Valuing celebrity and giving it a lot of media attention warps what people aspire to and is very negative. However, most of the wealthy are not celebrities. They never have been. I have no interest in "encouraging the wealthy to spend more money in shops". We shouldn't have to. They actually spend a small proportion of their wealth. Most is hoarded The best way to increase domestic spending is to "encourage", by which I mean "compel", them to pay those who work in the least we'll paid sectors better. The poor spend all of their money and nearly all locally. It will also mean that the state does not have to subsidise them as they are earning enough to live on and that doing "menial' jobs has their value recognised, which in turn means that people feel value and some pride in doing those jobs. Not the lie of "trickle down" BS." But if they're compelled to pay more to low paid workers then prices will go up and they still can't afford anything, and the middle layer of earners will become the less well off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think we need to change as a society regarding the rich and famous? I was thinking about this trickle down economics and thinking, maybe famous people and the wealthy would like to spend their cash in local towns, shops and restaurants if they wasn't hounded by the public and press. People moan about them going to fancy exclusive restaurants and going to shops the average person can't afford but maybe if we just left them alone and treat them like, well the humans that they are then they'd be spending their cash in local places more and there would be more money in the community instead of it going to the already rich. Even if that's not the case I feel we need to change how we treat these people. Fame has to go! It's just imprinted in us now to worship these people who are, don't get me wrong very talented, but to hound them in the streets for autographs and selfies is crazy! We need to encourage the rich to spend more in shops we go to but they can't go into towns, imagine walking around town and everyone stopping you? Be nice for a bit I suppose then you'd get pissed off with it and avoid going. Just an idea... There's a confusion here between wealth and celebrity. Valuing celebrity and giving it a lot of media attention warps what people aspire to and is very negative. However, most of the wealthy are not celebrities. They never have been. I have no interest in "encouraging the wealthy to spend more money in shops". We shouldn't have to. They actually spend a small proportion of their wealth. Most is hoarded The best way to increase domestic spending is to "encourage", by which I mean "compel", them to pay those who work in the least we'll paid sectors better. The poor spend all of their money and nearly all locally. It will also mean that the state does not have to subsidise them as they are earning enough to live on and that doing "menial' jobs has their value recognised, which in turn means that people feel value and some pride in doing those jobs. Not the lie of "trickle down" BS. But if they're compelled to pay more to low paid workers then prices will go up and they still can't afford anything, and the middle layer of earners will become the less well off. " According to our Government. In that case, why give tax cuts to the wealthiest. Prices rise if demand exceeds supply. Prices do not rise if the poor cannot even afford the basics such as food, rent and fuel. Why does paying the poorest more make the middle classes less well off? It will barely be noticed by the wealthiest in their day to day lives either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . " low to medium earners usually on PAYE find it difficult to avoid tax. High earners can employ clever accountants to minimize tax liability | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. . The tax bands are set out in black and white . You cannot just simply decide not to pay tax . low to medium earners usually on PAYE find it difficult to avoid tax. High earners can employ clever accountants to minimize tax liability " Everyone is allowed a capital gains allowance of 12k even on paye so you can earn over 12k from shares crypto commodities and not pay tax, more than that you are looking for offshore bank accounts to hide it until you cash it in and start to spend it in the real world on real stuff, it ain't called the casino for nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax." It seems some of the top earners must be paying loads of tax as it appears that they contribute around 30% of the tax take while at the same time their friends are not paying any by moving it offshore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax. It seems some of the top earners must be paying loads of tax as it appears that they contribute around 30% of the tax take while at the same time their friends are not paying any by moving it offshore" 30% of income tax is paid by the wealthiest. These are employees of a company. That is not the same as the wealthiest paying 30% of all taxes. Many of the wealthy receive their money in different ways so are not subject to income tax, so pay significantly less than you might expect. "Wealthiest in Britain paying just 20 per cent tax rate, new research shows A tenth of people receiving more than £1m paid a lower rate than someone earning just £15,000" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wealthy-uk-tax-cost-rate-capital-gains-income-tax-a9566211.html#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16653321639889&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fbusiness%2Fnews%2Fwealthy-uk-tax-cost-rate-capital-gains-income-tax-a9566211.html These are not necessarily the people who start businesses and create jobs through hard work and passion and determination. They are just wealthy and find ways to remain so and become more so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to understand why they are rich in the first place." Depends on who you are talking about. Some people have worked hard and built businesses. Some have trained and reached the top of their professions earning high salaries. Some have inherited money. Some are criminals. Some pay their taxes and some do all they can to avoid it. The rich are as diverse as the rest of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax." The stats are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-statistics-tax-year-2019-to-2020-to-tax-year-2022-to-2023/summary-statistics The top 50% of tax payers have about 75% of income and pay just over 90% of the tax. The top 1% of earners have about 12.5% of income and pay just over 28% of the tax. These stats give _everyone_ an opportunity to make the points that they want to favour. If you in favour of the wealthy then you can make a very strong argument that they pay disproportionately more than anyone else of their income. If you are in against income disparity then you can make a very strong argument that the top 1 % has almost half the income of the bottom 50%. Both of those arguments are valid and correct at the same time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax. The stats are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-statistics-tax-year-2019-to-2020-to-tax-year-2022-to-2023/summary-statistics The top 50% of tax payers have about 75% of income and pay just over 90% of the tax. The top 1% of earners have about 12.5% of income and pay just over 28% of the tax. These stats give _everyone_ an opportunity to make the points that they want to favour. If you in favour of the wealthy then you can make a very strong argument that they pay disproportionately more than anyone else of their income. If you are in against income disparity then you can make a very strong argument that the top 1 % has almost half the income of the bottom 50%. Both of those arguments are valid and correct at the same time. " These statistics only cover income tax. Don't make the mistake that the wealthy earn an obvious salary like the rest of us. The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate." I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot." you can only have £1m and a bit in pensions until it get taxed at a fair whack. (55pc itrc) For me, IHT is a toll we do t use enough. However it's an emotional tax and one many dislike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot." Not having brexit would be good. Or a having a government that were interested in close tax loopholes. Which of course the current government have absolutely zero interest in, as they personally will lose out and have to pay taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot. Not having brexit would be good. Or a having a government that were interested in close tax loopholes. Which of course the current government have absolutely zero interest in, as they personally will lose out and have to pay taxes." You have very successfully proved the point I was making out about noise. “Not having brexit” is a meaningless strategy because it has happened. How do _you_ propose to fix things moving forward? What loop holes do _you_ suggest we close and how do _you_ know that they will not have any unforeseen consequences? Practical solutions - not anger and vitriol please  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot. Not having brexit would be good. Or a having a government that were interested in close tax loopholes. Which of course the current government have absolutely zero interest in, as they personally will lose out and have to pay taxes. You have very successfully proved the point I was making out about noise. “Not having brexit” is a meaningless strategy because it has happened. How do _you_ propose to fix things moving forward? What loop holes do _you_ suggest we close and how do _you_ know that they will not have any unforeseen consequences? Practical solutions - not anger and vitriol please "Are you expecting normal people to have the some level of knowledge of tax law? What's wrong with wanting a government with at least an aim of closing the tax loopholes. Is my desire for that null and void because I am not a tax avoidance specialist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot. Not having brexit would be good. Or a having a government that were interested in close tax loopholes. Which of course the current government have absolutely zero interest in, as they personally will lose out and have to pay taxes. You have very successfully proved the point I was making out about noise. “Not having brexit” is a meaningless strategy because it has happened. How do _you_ propose to fix things moving forward? What loop holes do _you_ suggest we close and how do _you_ know that they will not have any unforeseen consequences? Practical solutions - not anger and vitriol please
Are you expecting normal people to have the some level of knowledge of tax law?
What's wrong with wanting a government with at least an aim of closing the tax loopholes. Is my desire for that null and void because I am not a tax avoidance specialist?"I am 100% with you in closing loopholes. I think they are abhorrent. The problem I have is that they are often there for good reasons but that is lost in the noise. There is too much noise. Everyone has an opinion but I rarely see anything that is _actionable_ on this forum. It is just shouting in the dark. I am sure it very cathartic but it is just an echo chamber. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot. Not having brexit would be good. Or a having a government that were interested in close tax loopholes. Which of course the current government have absolutely zero interest in, as they personally will lose out and have to pay taxes. You have very successfully proved the point I was making out about noise. “Not having brexit” is a meaningless strategy because it has happened. How do _you_ propose to fix things moving forward? What loop holes do _you_ suggest we close and how do _you_ know that they will not have any unforeseen consequences? Practical solutions - not anger and vitriol please
Are you expecting normal people to have the some level of knowledge of tax law?
What's wrong with wanting a government with at least an aim of closing the tax loopholes. Is my desire for that null and void because I am not a tax avoidance specialist?
I am 100% with you in closing loopholes. I think they are abhorrent. The problem I have is that they are often there for good reasons but that is lost in the noise. There is too much noise.
Everyone has an opinion but I rarely see anything that is _actionable_ on this forum. It is just shouting in the dark. I am sure it very cathartic but it is just an echo chamber."That's fair. On this issue. I just want a government that acts in the interests of the country, over their own bank accounts. I'm not a tax lawyer and don't have practical suggestions how to close the loopholes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's always a worry, when socialist political parties, just use the adage "tax the rich", in order to justify their spending policies. It's never guaranteed, which would always lead to problems down the line. The wealthy, both individuals and companies, know how to shift their wealth around. I'm all for a more progressive tax system, but it has to be workable. " Nobody is actually saying "tax the rich". You are for a more equitable tax system but don't know how so let's not bother? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The wealthiest pay little or no income tax as they make their money in ways that are paid at a lower rate. I agree with you. The problem I have with this thread (and all threads like it) is that there is a lot of anger and noise but very little comment on what people would _actually_ do to change it other than a nebulous “tax the rich”. As the stats I put in showed we do have a progressive income tax system. We can argue about whether it is progressive enough but that is a smokescreen to the “real” issue. The real wealth (and the stuff that gets people angry) is wealth owned by capital appreciation - ie shares. Capital gains tax is what can be gamed by accountants and a vast sum of money made. The question is what do you do about it? The “obvious” answer is to remove all the exemptions which allow the accountants to get round it. Sounds good in practice but then what happens to things like your pension? Pensions are largely free of gains tax and if you were to tax that then a lot of us would have much less than we do now. Maybe you exempt pensions. So apart from the fact that you have now completely U turned on your strategy you have also left the door open for the “rich” to now reclassify their holdings as pension funds and escape tax. Nothing will change. I genuinely don’t know what the answer is but I would like to see more people putting forward solutions rather than just shouting a lot." Look and you will find. It just depends how deeply you wish to get into it. From the LSE How much tax do the rich really pay? Interesting podcast on the same page if you search for it: 'One option for a government looking to raise tax revenues would be to implement a new "alternative minimum tax". This would put a floor on the lowest tax rates. If set at 35 per cent on taxable income and gains for all those with over £100,000 per year, our research indicates that this tax could raise £11 billion per year."' 'A wealth tax – based on a person’s total assets, minus any debts – is often suggested as the solution to this problem. The UK does not and never has had a wealth tax, although several other countries do – including Switzerland, Spain and Norway – with varying degrees of success.' 'We published the final Wealth Tax Commission report in December 2020, with the recommendation that, if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending. A one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at one per cent a year for five years, we found, would raise £260 billion.' From the Wealth Tax Comission Report 2020: 'Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold. Include all assets such as main homes and pension pots, as well as business and financial wealth, but minus any debts such as mortgages. Be payable in instalments over five years. The Commission concludes that a one-off wealth tax would be: Fair. Wealth provides opportunity, security and spending power. Those with the most wealth have the ‘broadest shoulders’ to afford an additional contribution to society in times of crisis. Efficient. Unlike taxes on work or spending, a one-off wealth tax would not discourage economic activity. The administrative costs would also be small as a proportion of the revenue raised. Very difficult to avoid. A one-off wealth tax could not be avoided by emigrating or moving money offshore. In fact, if well designed, it would be very difficult to avoid the tax legally.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'One option for a government looking to raise tax revenues would be to implement a new "alternative minimum tax". This would put a floor on the lowest tax rates. If set at 35 per cent on taxable income and gains for all those with over £100,000 per year ..." That would just result in everyone setting up companies, and funneling their income through those. Then the company would pay for stuff instead of the person, and they could make sure that the person has an 'income' that was below the threshold. "'A wealth tax – based on a person’s total assets, minus any debts – is often suggested as the solution to this problem." A wealth tax is one of the more stupid ideas to 'even things up'. The properly wealthy would just put all their stuff into a trust, and operate it offshore. That would leave the tax only being paid by grannies who live on their tiny pension, but are considered 'wealthy' because they live in a house in London. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'One option for a government looking to raise tax revenues would be to implement a new "alternative minimum tax". This would put a floor on the lowest tax rates. If set at 35 per cent on taxable income and gains for all those with over £100,000 per year ... That would just result in everyone setting up companies, and funneling their income through those. Then the company would pay for stuff instead of the person, and they could make sure that the person has an 'income' that was below the threshold. 'A wealth tax – based on a person’s total assets, minus any debts – is often suggested as the solution to this problem. A wealth tax is one of the more stupid ideas to 'even things up'. The properly wealthy would just put all their stuff into a trust, and operate it offshore. That would leave the tax only being paid by grannies who live on their tiny pension, but are considered 'wealthy' because they live in a house in London." The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? However you are paid and by who or whatever organisation. Hence, minimum tax. You didn't listen to the podcast explanation then? Just wanted a quick answer to a complex question without thought? Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. Perhaps you don't include the house that you live in. Perhaps just every other property? You are allowed to think for yourself too. You are certain though, so that's the main thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right?" No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. "Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values." I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax?" That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy "It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value. How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy
It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value.
How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell? "Why does one adaption make "not really strong"? You can also not have that exception if you own multiple properties and assets. Wealth is not only held in property. Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period? Again, do you feel it is better for the wealthy to accumulate more as a smaller and smaller percentage of what they own needs to be spent on day to day life or even extravagances? Do we just wait until we have the fictional perfect solution? You have been asking everyone for solutions. How about some of yours? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy
It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value.
How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell?
Why does one adaption make "not really strong"?
You can also not have that exception if you own multiple properties and assets.
Wealth is not only held in property.
Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period?
Again, do you feel it is better for the wealthy to accumulate more as a smaller and smaller percentage of what they own needs to be spent on day to day life or even extravagances?
Do we just wait until we have the fictional perfect solution?
You have been asking everyone for solutions. How about some of yours?"I go back to iht. If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell? And my welath is easyish to value. As I've played safe with my savings. How do you go about valuing shares in a start up? Or art? Given pension schemes were struggling with liquidity I'm not a fan of risking people's solvency. Imo tax has to be alligned with when cash is created. Or when the peorwon no longer needs it ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy
It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value.
How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell?
Why does one adaption make "not really strong"?
You can also not have that exception if you own multiple properties and assets.
Wealth is not only held in property.
Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period?
Again, do you feel it is better for the wealthy to accumulate more as a smaller and smaller percentage of what they own needs to be spent on day to day life or even extravagances?
Do we just wait until we have the fictional perfect solution?
You have been asking everyone for solutions. How about some of yours?I go back to iht.
If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell?
And my welath is easyish to value. As I've played safe with my savings.
How do you go about valuing shares in a start up? Or art?
Given pension schemes were struggling with liquidity I'm not a fan of risking people's solvency. Imo tax has to be alligned with when cash is created. Or when the peorwon no longer needs it ..."So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by. With an identifiable primary residence and maximum pension pot of which both could be substantial, there will be an excess which can be taxed. Again, what's your plan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell?" "Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period?" Well here's an example for you. Let's say I have some spare cash, and I invest it shares of a solar farm. It's well run, so the shares go up slightly. Then the leader of the largest gas producing country in the world invades another country, and cuts off gas supplies to the rest of the world, massively increasing international energy prices. My solar farm is now making huge profits, and the value of its shares shoots up to 10 times what I paid for them. Come the end of the year, the tax man determines that my wealth has increased, so I must pay some tax. But shortly after the tax bill arrives, the mad invading bloke gets bumped off by his own security team. The gas taps get turned back on, and international energy prices fall dramatically. My solar farm is no longer making massive profits, so the price of its shares falls precipitantly. I am now in a position where I have a large tax bill, to pay for a profit that I will never see. In fact I'll now have to sell my shares at a loss to pay for the tax bill. That's why wealth taxes are unfair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy
It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value.
How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell?
Why does one adaption make "not really strong"?
You can also not have that exception if you own multiple properties and assets.
Wealth is not only held in property.
Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period?
Again, do you feel it is better for the wealthy to accumulate more as a smaller and smaller percentage of what they own needs to be spent on day to day life or even extravagances?
Do we just wait until we have the fictional perfect solution?
You have been asking everyone for solutions. How about some of yours?I go back to iht.
If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell?
And my welath is easyish to value. As I've played safe with my savings.
How do you go about valuing shares in a start up? Or art?
Given pension schemes were struggling with liquidity I'm not a fan of risking people's solvency. Imo tax has to be alligned with when cash is created. Or when the peorwon no longer needs it ...
So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by.
With an identifiable primary residence and maximum pension pot of which both could be substantial, there will be an excess which can be taxed.
Again, what's your plan?"I don't follow what you mean by the first two items the really wealthy will be barely influenced by. I'm also not sure where the excess is coming from is all my wealth is my house or my pension pot. I also don't understand why IHT doesn't work but a wealth tax does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell?" "So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by." So the rich will barely be influenced by a wealth tax on main homes and pension pots? But those were the first two things proposed to justify a wealth tax in the Wealth Tax Comission Report 2020. Are you saying that the report got it wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy
It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value.
How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell?
Why does one adaption make "not really strong"?
You can also not have that exception if you own multiple properties and assets.
Wealth is not only held in property.
Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period?
Again, do you feel it is better for the wealthy to accumulate more as a smaller and smaller percentage of what they own needs to be spent on day to day life or even extravagances?
Do we just wait until we have the fictional perfect solution?
You have been asking everyone for solutions. How about some of yours?I go back to iht.
If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell?
And my welath is easyish to value. As I've played safe with my savings.
How do you go about valuing shares in a start up? Or art?
Given pension schemes were struggling with liquidity I'm not a fan of risking people's solvency. Imo tax has to be alligned with when cash is created. Or when the peorwon no longer needs it ...
So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by.
With an identifiable primary residence and maximum pension pot of which both could be substantial, there will be an excess which can be taxed.
Again, what's your plan?I don't follow what you mean by the first two items the really wealthy will be barely influenced by.
I'm also not sure where the excess is coming from is all my wealth is my house or my pension pot.
I also don't understand why IHT doesn't work but a wealth tax does. "Do you think that people whose only assets are their home and there pension are likely to be in the group who are considered exceptionally wealthy and find ways to only pay as much tax as someone earning £15k a year? If not then why have you decided that they are the target? Wealth and assets are traceable and taxable. If you choose to hide them, then you would be evading tax. I have no problem with inheritance tax either. Passing on earned wealth as unearned wealth is even more inequitable. There are infinite scams around that too though, aren't there? You have no solution except to continue the process of concentrating wealth in a smaller and smaller group? A wealth tax would be unnecessary if all income was taxed as PAYE. However you obtain it to spend. Did you listen to the podcast? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell? So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by. So the rich will barely be influenced by a wealth tax on main homes and pension pots? But those were the first two things proposed to justify a wealth tax in the Wealth Tax Comission Report 2020. Are you saying that the report got it wrong?" The report could certainly have elements wrong or that need modifying. Odd that you might believe that it cannot. Just do some thinking. What is your solution? Perhaps the status quo suits you? The rich accumulate more wealth and the gap to the rest of society grows. Did you read the articles or listen to the podcast? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell? Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period? Well here's an example for you. Let's say I have some spare cash, and I invest it shares of a solar farm. It's well run, so the shares go up slightly. Then the leader of the largest gas producing country in the world invades another country, and cuts off gas supplies to the rest of the world, massively increasing international energy prices. My solar farm is now making huge profits, and the value of its shares shoots up to 10 times what I paid for them. Come the end of the year, the tax man determines that my wealth has increased, so I must pay some tax. But shortly after the tax bill arrives, the mad invading bloke gets bumped off by his own security team. The gas taps get turned back on, and international energy prices fall dramatically. My solar farm is no longer making massive profits, so the price of its shares falls precipitantly. I am now in a position where I have a large tax bill, to pay for a profit that I will never see. In fact I'll now have to sell my shares at a loss to pay for the tax bill. That's why wealth taxes are unfair." Shame. Alternatively have a tax system that has you pay your capital gains tax as PAYE income or a 35% base. It's more unfair that a multi-millionaire pays less tax than someone on £15k Also, if you read, the wealth tax is hypothecated for a specific set of circumstances which are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the rich will barely be influenced by a wealth tax on main homes and pension pots? But those were the first two things proposed to justify a wealth tax in the Wealth Tax Comission Report 2020. Are you saying that the report got it wrong?" "The report could certainly have elements wrong or that need modifying. Odd that you might believe that it cannot." I think I've made it very clear that I believe the whole report is a pile of trash that should be ignored, if not ridiculed. You, on the other hand, used it as the central argument in your lengthy post above arguing that a wealth tax was a good idea. If you now think that the report is flawed, you should probably re-evaluate your position on the thing that the report proposed. "What is your solution?" If you'd care to define what you think the problem is, I'll have a crack at a solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's say I have some spare cash, and I invest it shares of a solar farm. It's well run, so the shares go up slightly. Then the leader of the largest gas producing country in the world invades another country, and cuts off gas supplies to the rest of the world, massively increasing international energy prices. My solar farm is now making huge profits, and the value of its shares shoots up to 10 times what I paid for them. Come the end of the year, the tax man determines that my wealth has increased, so I must pay some tax. But shortly after the tax bill arrives, the mad invading bloke gets bumped off by his own security team. The gas taps get turned back on, and international energy prices fall dramatically. My solar farm is no longer making massive profits, so the price of its shares falls precipitantly. I am now in a position where I have a large tax bill, to pay for a profit that I will never see. In fact I'll now have to sell my shares at a loss to pay for the tax bill. That's why wealth taxes are unfair." "Shame." I'm glad to see you accepting that a wealth tax is unfair. "Alternatively have a tax system that has you pay your capital gains tax as PAYE income or a 35% base." What's wrong with the current Capital Gains Tax system? Lower earners pay less CGT, higher earners pay more. Tax is levied on gains, no offsets for losses. What's wrong with that system? "It's more unfair that a multi-millionaire pays less tax than someone on £15k" Some might agree with you on that, but how would a wealth tax change anything? The rich already find ways to limit their tax liability. It's not hard to find ways around a wealth tax, and that's exactly what they would do. "Also, if you read, the wealth tax is hypothecated for a specific set of circumstances which are?" It's not important how the revenue would be spent, the important fact is that a wealth tax would be hugely unfair, and it would still be avoided by those that have the means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell? So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by. So the rich will barely be influenced by a wealth tax on main homes and pension pots? But those were the first two things proposed to justify a wealth tax in the Wealth Tax Comission Report 2020. Are you saying that the report got it wrong? The report could certainly have elements wrong or that need modifying. Odd that you might believe that it cannot. Just do some thinking. What is your solution? Perhaps the status quo suits you? The rich accumulate more wealth and the gap to the rest of society grows. Did you read the articles or listen to the podcast?" A solution is hardly necessary. The top 1% already pay a significant proportion of the taxes collected in the UK. We should hardly be advocating taxes that would drive them away and in addition result in less taxes being collected. We probably need to match taxes paid to services used . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell? So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by. So the rich will barely be influenced by a wealth tax on main homes and pension pots? But those were the first two things proposed to justify a wealth tax in the Wealth Tax Comission Report 2020. Are you saying that the report got it wrong? The report could certainly have elements wrong or that need modifying. Odd that you might believe that it cannot. Just do some thinking. What is your solution? Perhaps the status quo suits you? The rich accumulate more wealth and the gap to the rest of society grows. Did you read the articles or listen to the podcast? A solution is hardly necessary. The top 1% already pay a significant proportion of the taxes collected in the UK. We should hardly be advocating taxes that would drive them away and in addition result in less taxes being collected. We probably need to match taxes paid to services used . " Shame team Truss don’t understand that and look like they will need to cut public services by £62bn to fill the black hole they want to create. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The money has to get into your account somehow so that you can spend it, right? No it doesn't. A company could be set up to 'hold public events', and could fly out their employee to the Caribbean where that person could live on expenses for 3 months, before coming back 'after negotiations failed'. Then they can jet off somewhere else. No money paid to the person, everything paid directly by the company as expenses. Why does a windfall tax seem reasonable on the energy producing companies? Because of a financial benefit unearned through any action of your own. Like rising property values. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, which taxes any profits you make from property appreciation, because that only applies when you sell the thing in question. I have a huge problem with "wealth tax", which taxes people based on how much the government thinks something might be worth. Apart from the sheer injustice of a wealth tax, who would get to make the decisions on how much wealth a person has? How many people would we have to employ to calculate this tax? That's why you du.d the HMRC properly. The "injustice" of a tax on wealth? The "injustice" of accumulating more and more money in a smaller and smaller set of hands. What could possibly go wrong? Again though, you don't want any of this, do you? The system has worked for you as it is. Lucky boy
It is not really a very strong argument for a wealth tax when you have to exempt the first example that is put in front of you - cash poor person with a house that has gone up massively in value.
How do you handle the wider problem of anyone who has illiquid assets but no cash? Make them sell?
Why does one adaption make "not really strong"?
You can also not have that exception if you own multiple properties and assets.
Wealth is not only held in property.
Yes, why not make them sell over a five year period?
Again, do you feel it is better for the wealthy to accumulate more as a smaller and smaller percentage of what they own needs to be spent on day to day life or even extravagances?
Do we just wait until we have the fictional perfect solution?
You have been asking everyone for solutions. How about some of yours?I go back to iht.
If my wealth is all house and all pension, I'm having to find 2k pa from my salary on top of everything else. That's quite an extra chunk of tax to find, an in at the peak of my earnings. Id probably have more wealth and less income in a few years. What do I sell?
And my welath is easyish to value. As I've played safe with my savings.
How do you go about valuing shares in a start up? Or art?
Given pension schemes were struggling with liquidity I'm not a fan of risking people's solvency. Imo tax has to be alligned with when cash is created. Or when the peorwon no longer needs it ...
So you have identified the two items which the really wealthy, who underpay tax, will barely be influenced by.
With an identifiable primary residence and maximum pension pot of which both could be substantial, there will be an excess which can be taxed.
Again, what's your plan?I don't follow what you mean by the first two items the really wealthy will be barely influenced by.
I'm also not sure where the excess is coming from is all my wealth is my house or my pension pot.
I also don't understand why IHT doesn't work but a wealth tax does.
Do you think that people whose only assets are their home and there pension are likely to be in the group who are considered exceptionally wealthy and find ways to only pay as much tax as someone earning £15k a year?
If not then why have you decided that they are the target?
Wealth and assets are traceable and taxable. If you choose to hide them, then you would be evading tax.
I have no problem with inheritance tax either.
Passing on earned wealth as unearned wealth is even more inequitable.
There are infinite scams around that too though, aren't there?
You have no solution except to continue the process of concentrating wealth in a smaller and smaller group?
A wealth tax would be unnecessary if all income was taxed as PAYE. However you obtain it to spend.
Did you listen to the podcast?"I haven't listened to the podcast yet. I'm responding to your posts. There seems to be a limitation with this wealth tax as (if I've read your words right) it will include peopel whose assets are in highly illiquid assets. I've reread and it's millionaire couples. So even more could be caught. They may not be the target. However it sounds like they will be caught. If that is the case, I believe that may not be acceptable collateral damage to get to the wealthier. My solution as above is higher IHT. Feel free to use whatever definition is used by the above wealth tax. And the same ways of avoiding loop holes. It then has a lot of the advantages that you described. As well as not creating illiquidity issues. And be repeatable. I don't see why you keep saying I don't have solutions. What fails here that wealth tax doesn't? If you have to do a wealth tax I'd avoid primary residence. And pensions. And possibly ISAs too. Anyone with a mil above here probably has ways of creating liquidity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No expert on this and certainly not done enough reading to feel properly informed so this is simply opinion... I am not supportive of a wealth tax. While there will be outliers, for the most part people have generated their wealth through the investment (including purchasing a house) of post tax net income. They have taken a risk and used their money to invest in their future. What we need (and will never get) is a vastly simplified tax code in the UK that prevents loopholes and closes down the ability to evade tax through financial instruments and offshoring to tax havens (personal and corporate offshoring). Anything else is tinkering at the margins and likely to just create yet more loopholes that clever accounting practices can avoid for the very wealthy. One example is people not directly owning their home(s) but instead having them owned by a Jersey/IoM etc based company they and their grown up kids are directors of and them effectively just being a rent free tenant. Avoids CGT and IHT." there should be a law that the beneficial owner of any property is established. Any dividends from a company that makes more than 10pc of revenue from property has an additional tax. I'd also not allow mortgages and loans for buy to lets. Landlords to be regulated properly. You could extend the seven year rule on gifts. Make it longer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems I feel with a wealth tax is people may be less inclined to strive to better themselves, work to own their own house or even take big risks with their own money to set up a business. What's the point if someone then wants to punish you for it later on. This is just my opinion, I do not know much about this proposal or current rules. " I disagree with this. I know of noone who doesn't strive because tax rates are a bit too high for them. Now clearly 100pc tax rates would put you off, but my guess is even 50pc would probably not put ppl off especially as lots are motivated by other things.as well as money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems I feel with a wealth tax is people may be less inclined to strive to better themselves, work to own their own house or even take big risks with their own money to set up a business. What's the point if someone then wants to punish you for it later on. This is just my opinion, I do not know much about this proposal or current rules. I disagree with this. I know of noone who doesn't strive because tax rates are a bit too high for them. Now clearly 100pc tax rates would put you off, but my guess is even 50pc would probably not put ppl off especially as lots are motivated by other things.as well as money. " I'm thinking of the examples given where people have to pay a wealth tax because they have their own home and in possible circumstances have to sell it. To me that's a disincentive to buy a house. As I say, just an opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What HAS been shown is that it deepens wealth inequality, which is concerning in a country with the worst social mobility of any developed nation." Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems I feel with a wealth tax is people may be less inclined to strive to better themselves, work to own their own house or even take big risks with their own money to set up a business. What's the point if someone then wants to punish you for it later on. This is just my opinion, I do not know much about this proposal or current rules. I disagree with this. I know of noone who doesn't strive because tax rates are a bit too high for them. Now clearly 100pc tax rates would put you off, but my guess is even 50pc would probably not put ppl off especially as lots are motivated by other things.as well as money. I'm thinking of the examples given where people have to pay a wealth tax because they have their own home and in possible circumstances have to sell it. To me that's a disincentive to buy a house. As I say, just an opinion" i agree that being put in potential hardship (and a lack of liquidity can cause that) would be off putting. That's slightly different than the tax rate... But yes, doing a tax in the wrong way can cause such decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems I feel with a wealth tax is people may be less inclined to strive to better themselves, work to own their own house or even take big risks with their own money to set up a business. What's the point if someone then wants to punish you for it later on. This is just my opinion, I do not know much about this proposal or current rules. I disagree with this. I know of noone who doesn't strive because tax rates are a bit too high for them. Now clearly 100pc tax rates would put you off, but my guess is even 50pc would probably not put ppl off especially as lots are motivated by other things.as well as money. I'm thinking of the examples given where people have to pay a wealth tax because they have their own home and in possible circumstances have to sell it. To me that's a disincentive to buy a house. As I say, just an opinion" If a wealth tax ever did happen (I hope not) then as said earlier in the thread, the primary home and pension should be exempt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be a law that the beneficial owner of any property is established." That's quite difficult to do, especially if the property is owned by an off-shore company. Some properties simply don't have a beneficial owner. For example, the Co-op own some of their shops. Who would you list as the beneficial owner of those? "I'd also not allow mortgages and loans for buy to lets. Landlords to be regulated properly." That's something I've been championing for ages. There's no excuse for allowing people to take rent for a property that they then put at risk by offering it as collateral for a loan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be a law that the beneficial owner of any property is established. That's quite difficult to do, especially if the property is owned by an off-shore company. Some properties simply don't have a beneficial owner. For example, the Co-op own some of their shops. Who would you list as the beneficial owner of those? I'd also not allow mortgages and loans for buy to lets. Landlords to be regulated properly. That's something I've been championing for ages. There's no excuse for allowing people to take rent for a property that they then put at risk by offering it as collateral for a loan." there's gonna be some issues for sure. Expemptions for listed. Or where no one shareholder has more than x%. Or can we stop offshore companies holding UK residential? Tbh, it was a from the hip suggestion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be a law that the beneficial owner of any property is established." "That's quite difficult to do, especially if the property is owned by an off-shore company. Some properties simply don't have a beneficial owner. For example, the Co-op own some of their shops. Who would you list as the beneficial owner of those?" "Tbh, it was a from the hip suggestion. " I wasn't criticising. I was just saying that it can be complex. But let's assume that it can be done, and we identify the beneficial owner of every property. What do we do with that information? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there should be a law that the beneficial owner of any property is established. That's quite difficult to do, especially if the property is owned by an off-shore company. Some properties simply don't have a beneficial owner. For example, the Co-op own some of their shops. Who would you list as the beneficial owner of those? Tbh, it was a from the hip suggestion. I wasn't criticising. I was just saying that it can be complex. But let's assume that it can be done, and we identify the beneficial owner of every property. What do we do with that information?" tax the dividends more if UK Res. And don't worry, I wasn't taking it as criticism. Just putting it in context versus the report on wealth tax! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."" I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What HAS been shown is that it deepens wealth inequality, which is concerning in a country with the worst social mobility of any developed nation. Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index" Yes, do check your facts. Look at what countries are above is and which are below, then compare it to how unequally distributed wealth is in those countries. This is what Goldman Sachs thinks in their report: The UK Performs Poorly When it Comes to Social Mobility. Here’s How it Can Improve. "The article below is from our BRIEFINGS newsletter of 07 April 2022 Compared with other countries, the most disadvantaged in the U.K. are less likely to climb the income ladder and the economically advantaged tend to stay at the top." "The primary thing is that the U.K., relative to the rest of Europe, looks pretty poor on most metrics on social mobility and things have actually deteriorated further in the last few years." "Finally, other researchers have noticed that the more progressive tax systems in some countries such as Denmark, Finland and Norway often lead to higher social mobility. And in the U.K., it could be that the tax system is disadvantageous to inequality and mobility." The Bigger Picture UK Social Mobility — A Tough Climb Again, you can listen if you don't want to read | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are taxes for? Do people who pay the most tax use more or less of the services being provided by tax, council tax for an example. If someone pays 45% tax, do they get 25% extra? Is the system not already weighted against those who earn more? What problem are we trying to fix, bad management and spending or another?" You think that the tax system is paying for a service? Really? A transaction? You think this is a management problem? This is about you looking after yourself and looking after those who cannot. You are in the position you are because, until now, the UK has been a stable country. A professional civil service with adequate resources to carry out tasks efficiently and in a timely manner. Infrastructure maintained in good condition. A well funded judiciary that acts independently giving business and civil society confidence. A well funded Police force that provides safety to rich and poor. Education that provides an effective workforce who are paid adequately to have a good enough life not to be resentful of the wealthy. The money that the wealthy and companies pay in tax is the foundation for their own wealth. You grow wealthier if society is wealthy. Thinking that keeping tax money to yourself benefits you in anything but the smallest and meanest of ways is incredibly short-sighted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. " The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's say I have some spare cash, and I invest it shares of a solar farm. It's well run, so the shares go up slightly. Then the leader of the largest gas producing country in the world invades another country, and cuts off gas supplies to the rest of the world, massively increasing international energy prices. My solar farm is now making huge profits, and the value of its shares shoots up to 10 times what I paid for them. Come the end of the year, the tax man determines that my wealth has increased, so I must pay some tax. But shortly after the tax bill arrives, the mad invading bloke gets bumped off by his own security team. The gas taps get turned back on, and international energy prices fall dramatically. My solar farm is no longer making massive profits, so the price of its shares falls precipitantly. I am now in a position where I have a large tax bill, to pay for a profit that I will never see. In fact I'll now have to sell my shares at a loss to pay for the tax bill. That's why wealth taxes are unfair. Shame. I'm glad to see you accepting that a wealth tax is unfair. Alternatively have a tax system that has you pay your capital gains tax as PAYE income or a 35% base. What's wrong with the current Capital Gains Tax system? Lower earners pay less CGT, higher earners pay more. Tax is levied on gains, no offsets for losses. What's wrong with that system? It's more unfair that a multi-millionaire pays less tax than someone on £15k Some might agree with you on that, but how would a wealth tax change anything? The rich already find ways to limit their tax liability. It's not hard to find ways around a wealth tax, and that's exactly what they would do. Also, if you read, the wealth tax is hypothecated for a specific set of circumstances which are? It's not important how the revenue would be spent, the important fact is that a wealth tax would be hugely unfair, and it would still be avoided by those that have the means." When you do the reading societies with higher progressive tax rates and lower wealth gaps are, unsurprisingly, the most equal and most socially mobile. You don't seem to think that's true. It will happen magically in some other way. You want to keep what you have and not share it. Fine. Just say that, but that will ultimately break the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is!" my bad. When mentioning millionaire couples I took this as the limit. Let's say it's 5m. You still have valuation challenges in many cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is!my bad. When mentioning millionaire couples I took this as the limit. Let's say it's 5m. You still have valuation challenges in many cases. " Of course. No more than for inheritance tax when you are faced by a deliberately opaque tax system designed by and for the wealthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is!my bad. When mentioning millionaire couples I took this as the limit. Let's say it's 5m. You still have valuation challenges in many cases. Of course. No more than for inheritance tax when you are faced by a deliberately opaque tax system designed by and for the wealthy." agreed. But with IHT you have time to do the valuation. And deaths are spread out across the year. So people to do the valuations. This jumps out to me as being a poorer version of IHT to get a one off tax amount. Better to spend time improving IHT laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You still have valuation challenges in many cases." "Of course. No more than for inheritance tax " Inheritance tax is easy to levy. The executors of the deceased's estate are required to produce an itemised list of all heritable items, along with their value, a total, and the amount of tax due. HMRC just has to sent a letter demanding that amount. There is no chance of the inheritors lodging an appeal against the valuation, since they are the ones that provided it. There's no chance of people hiding things, since they would not get legal title if they did so. Asking a rich man to list all of his assets so that he can be wealth taxed, is a very different scenario. There's lots of opportunity and incentive for deceit, and HMRC would need an army of assessors to combat that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is!my bad. When mentioning millionaire couples I took this as the limit. Let's say it's 5m. You still have valuation challenges in many cases. Of course. No more than for inheritance tax when you are faced by a deliberately opaque tax system designed by and for the wealthy.agreed. But with IHT you have time to do the valuation. And deaths are spread out across the year. So people to do the valuations. This jumps out to me as being a poorer version of IHT to get a one off tax amount. Better to spend time improving IHT laws. " As an on-going solution, yes. However, as a windfall tax to cope with crises, a wealth tax (within given parameters) has much to recommend it and are a way to force a more transparent financial system which keeps being cited as a reason not to try to tax the wealthy on income or anything else. Big fines if you are found to have concealed assets... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You still have valuation challenges in many cases. Of course. No more than for inheritance tax Inheritance tax is easy to levy. The executors of the deceased's estate are required to produce an itemised list of all heritable items, along with their value, a total, and the amount of tax due. HMRC just has to sent a letter demanding that amount. There is no chance of the inheritors lodging an appeal against the valuation, since they are the ones that provided it. There's no chance of people hiding things, since they would not get legal title if they did so. Asking a rich man to list all of his assets so that he can be wealth taxed, is a very different scenario. There's lots of opportunity and incentive for deceit, and HMRC would need an army of assessors to combat that." That is naive at best. Believing that a rich person who has their entire life to structure their finances to minimise inheritance tax won't do so. It's still a wealth tax though. Any assets concealed in life will remain so in death. You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is!my bad. When mentioning millionaire couples I took this as the limit. Let's say it's 5m. You still have valuation challenges in many cases. Of course. No more than for inheritance tax when you are faced by a deliberately opaque tax system designed by and for the wealthy.agreed. But with IHT you have time to do the valuation. And deaths are spread out across the year. So people to do the valuations. This jumps out to me as being a poorer version of IHT to get a one off tax amount. Better to spend time improving IHT laws. As an on-going solution, yes. However, as a windfall tax to cope with crises, a wealth tax (within given parameters) has much to recommend it and are a way to force a more transparent financial system which keeps being cited as a reason not to try to tax the wealthy on income or anything else. Big fines if you are found to have concealed assets..." I don't see how it will force anything without a lot of work and new laws. What does a one of wealth tax do to the system that today's IHT cant? At best, COVID have political capital to look at sorting out the system. There needs to be a will and public support ... And ppl are emotional about iht. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys, please read the context rather than make an assumption that this is an on-going activity. It is no different to a windfall tax on energy companies in extraordinary times. COVID is extraordinary times and the poor cannot pay. The wealthy, quite frankly, can above a certain threshold of wealth. "if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending" "Be paid by any UK resident (including ‘non-doms’ and recent emigrants) with personal wealth above a set threshold."I understood. I thought the conversation had evolved to closing the gap between the haves and haves not. But even as a one off, I still believe including pensions and primary housing may have unintended consequences. Especially if you are looking at combined wealth. I also think it's not as simple as it sounds to determine someone's net wealth at a point in time. Especially the properly wealthy. The discussion did not "move on" because nobody addressed the actual point made because nobody actually read it. "personal wealth above a set threshold" Decide what the threshold is!my bad. When mentioning millionaire couples I took this as the limit. Let's say it's 5m. You still have valuation challenges in many cases. Of course. No more than for inheritance tax when you are faced by a deliberately opaque tax system designed by and for the wealthy.agreed. But with IHT you have time to do the valuation. And deaths are spread out across the year. So people to do the valuations. This jumps out to me as being a poorer version of IHT to get a one off tax amount. Better to spend time improving IHT laws. As an on-going solution, yes. However, as a windfall tax to cope with crises, a wealth tax (within given parameters) has much to recommend it and are a way to force a more transparent financial system which keeps being cited as a reason not to try to tax the wealthy on income or anything else. Big fines if you are found to have concealed assets...I don't see how it will force anything without a lot of work and new laws. What does a one of wealth tax do to the system that today's IHT cant? At best, COVID have political capital to look at sorting out the system. There needs to be a will and public support ... And ppl are emotional about iht. " You get more money now to fix the public finances which have taken a one-off hit from COVID which the wealthy have been relatively insulated from. The inheritance tax does not go away. Of course it takes a lot of work and will to do so. That is the same for anything and everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s assume the/a govt brought in a one off wealth tax to make up a shortfall during a crisis. Very emotive and as the majority of the people in the country would not be affected, likely to get support. Wherever the threshold is set, someone loses out by it being unfair. The normal cited example tends to be an elderly man/woman living in Islington in a Georgian/Victorian terrace house that they bought in the 60s for maybe £2k when Islington was a shithole. That house is easily now worth in excess of £2m+ and will have no mortgage. It doesn’t mean this old person is cash rich though, just asset rich. If they get hit by a wealth tax, how do they pay it? If they have “kids” then the house will be subject to IHT eventually anyway. What if the wealth tax is paid, does that provide some offset to the future IHT? For me the parameters are that primary home and pension should be off limits. However, as I said above, I am not supportive of a wealth tax purely on principle." How many times shall I repeat that you can exclude primary residence and pension and define a threshold. Is there a reason you continue to ignore that? Wealth taxes were widely instituted after WWII. What is the principle by which unearned wealth should continue to be accumulated in the hands of a small number of people through the generations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, as a windfall tax to cope with crises, a wealth tax (within given parameters) has much to recommend it ..." Exactly what does it have to recommend it? Apart from giving a kicking to those rich people that you hate so much, what are the other benefits of a wealth tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the top earning 1% in the UK pays around 30% of the total Income tax take and around half of that comes from the top 0.1% it would seem desirable to keep them around… That stat doesn't tell the full story. Many of those top 1% and 0.1% pay fuck all, as all their assets are held in tax havens. Can you provide actual figures or is that just assumption and rumour ? Most very rich people are audited by HMRC much more rigorously than average Joe and they are probably employing hundreds or thousands who pay tax. The stats are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-statistics-tax-year-2019-to-2020-to-tax-year-2022-to-2023/summary-statistics The top 50% of tax payers have about 75% of income and pay just over 90% of the tax. The top 1% of earners have about 12.5% of income and pay just over 28% of the tax. These stats give _everyone_ an opportunity to make the points that they want to favour. If you in favour of the wealthy then you can make a very strong argument that they pay disproportionately more than anyone else of their income. If you are in against income disparity then you can make a very strong argument that the top 1 % has almost half the income of the bottom 50%. Both of those arguments are valid and correct at the same time. " Just a small point on this. The Tory party trots out who pays what regarding income tax and it’s always how the wealthy pay more . What it doesn’t do is show the tax burden as a proportion of government revenue. By this I mean things such as fuel tax , VAT, alcohol duty etc. When these are added to to calculation the wealthiest 1% ( U.K. those over £162k) their contribution drops to be tween 10 and 17% . It’s hard to get accurate figures on peoples spending so it’s a wide range . The thinking is it’s towards the lower end . Just added to the mix. The top 0.1% pay considerably less tax as a percentage of their income due to avoidance schemes . Some pay nothing whilst others it is estimated contribute up to 20% of their income . Still way below the 45% PAYE earners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s assume the/a govt brought in a one off wealth tax to make up a shortfall during a crisis. Very emotive and as the majority of the people in the country would not be affected, likely to get support. Wherever the threshold is set, someone loses out by it being unfair. The normal cited example tends to be an elderly man/woman living in Islington in a Georgian/Victorian terrace house that they bought in the 60s for maybe £2k when Islington was a shithole. That house is easily now worth in excess of £2m+ and will have no mortgage. It doesn’t mean this old person is cash rich though, just asset rich. If they get hit by a wealth tax, how do they pay it? If they have “kids” then the house will be subject to IHT eventually anyway. What if the wealth tax is paid, does that provide some offset to the future IHT? For me the parameters are that primary home and pension should be off limits. However, as I said above, I am not supportive of a wealth tax purely on principle. How many times shall I repeat that you can exclude primary residence and pension and define a threshold. Is there a reason you continue to ignore that? Wealth taxes were widely instituted after WWII. What is the principle by which unearned wealth should continue to be accumulated in the hands of a small number of people through the generations?" How much of a dent in wealth redistribution would a one or two percent one-off tax make ? From what I can see this is more about plugging a one-off gap in our finances. I get that. I get why the wealthy are the target. I'm not debating either of these positions. I don't see that it is practical as a one off tax. There is a lot of work to redo tax laws to avoid the iht loop holes you rightfully highlight. Do you know how long this would take ? Would the welathy be able to take preemptive steps to avoid this ? And the calculation will be immense. And put more money in a handful of accountants and lawyers. Forgetting the reasons why, do you truely believe this is workable and if so, how quickly could it be put in place ? What steps would be needed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, as a windfall tax to cope with crises, a wealth tax (within given parameters) has much to recommend it ... Exactly what does it have to recommend it? Apart from giving a kicking to those rich people that you hate so much, what are the other benefits of a wealth tax?" Why do the wealthy paying more tax and contributing more to the society that they have benefited from mean that I "hate" them? Have you any conception of where I sit financially? Do you think it foolish to empathise with those in financial or social or physical hardship and believe it a good idea to help them and improve the opportunities of those who start at a disadvantage? What a wealth tax does is rwduce unearned wealth, and consequently power and influence being accumulated in a small section of society to the detriment of others. In exceptional circumstances, when the state has to step in to stabilise a nation it should again fall to the wealthiest, those who have benefited the most, to make the largest contribution to paying for that stability. What's your position? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s assume the/a govt brought in a one off wealth tax to make up a shortfall during a crisis. Very emotive and as the majority of the people in the country would not be affected, likely to get support. Wherever the threshold is set, someone loses out by it being unfair. The normal cited example tends to be an elderly man/woman living in Islington in a Georgian/Victorian terrace house that they bought in the 60s for maybe £2k when Islington was a shithole. That house is easily now worth in excess of £2m+ and will have no mortgage. It doesn’t mean this old person is cash rich though, just asset rich. If they get hit by a wealth tax, how do they pay it? If they have “kids” then the house will be subject to IHT eventually anyway. What if the wealth tax is paid, does that provide some offset to the future IHT? For me the parameters are that primary home and pension should be off limits. However, as I said above, I am not supportive of a wealth tax purely on principle. How many times shall I repeat that you can exclude primary residence and pension and define a threshold. Is there a reason you continue to ignore that? Wealth taxes were widely instituted after WWII. What is the principle by which unearned wealth should continue to be accumulated in the hands of a small number of people through the generations? How much of a dent in wealth redistribution would a one or two percent one-off tax make ? From what I can see this is more about plugging a one-off gap in our finances. I get that. I get why the wealthy are the target. I'm not debating either of these positions. I don't see that it is practical as a one off tax. There is a lot of work to redo tax laws to avoid the iht loop holes you rightfully highlight. Do you know how long this would take ? Would the welathy be able to take preemptive steps to avoid this ? And the calculation will be immense. And put more money in a handful of accountants and lawyers. Forgetting the reasons why, do you truely believe this is workable and if so, how quickly could it be put in place ? What steps would be needed? " A wealth tax is about filling one-off holes in finances in exceptional circumstances. Inheritance tax is about long term financial equilibrium (not equality) within a society. Yes it will be complex and difficult and require will. Perhaps it will take some time to accomplish. No, it doesn't have to benefit lawyers and accountants. However, if there is no political will, it will not happen. If you don't believe that there is substantial benefit in controlling huge inequalities in wealth and the undue power and influence that it brings then do nothing and say that it's impossible. If you do think there's a problem then start. If this solution is not right, then what is? Perhaps the welfare state or the NHS or free education should not have been introduced? They were too expensive and complicated too... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are taxes for? Do people who pay the most tax use more or less of the services being provided by tax, council tax for an example. If someone pays 45% tax, do they get 25% extra? Is the system not already weighted against those who earn more? What problem are we trying to fix, bad management and spending or another? You think that the tax system is paying for a service? Really? A transaction? You think this is a management problem? This is about you looking after yourself and looking after those who cannot. You are in the position you are because, until now, the UK has been a stable country. A professional civil service with adequate resources to carry out tasks efficiently and in a timely manner. Infrastructure maintained in good condition. A well funded judiciary that acts independently giving business and civil society confidence. A well funded Police force that provides safety to rich and poor. Education that provides an effective workforce who are paid adequately to have a good enough life not to be resentful of the wealthy. The money that the wealthy and companies pay in tax is the foundation for their own wealth. You grow wealthier if society is wealthy. Thinking that keeping tax money to yourself benefits you in anything but the smallest and meanest of ways is incredibly short-sighted. " All I have see and hear is pay more tax, this will be taxed, that needs to be taxed. This country and the people like you are always asking for problems to be resolved with more tax. The amount of tax people pay can be shocking, I can't even begin to start listing all of the taxes we pay, the list seems endless. You don't seem to care about all of the taxes as long as the better off are paying the majority of the tax and if more money is needed invent new taxes or rates to be taken from the same people. In your world when does this end?When the better off have less than, oh hold on, the now better off? Now what do you do? I've heard this before Robin. You get embroiled with the how to create taxes, who should be paying taxes and it always ends up with the same outcome. The richest pay more. Why not start looking at the actual sources of the problems first, why do we need more tax, what created the problem. Bitterness towards those that are doing well for themselves is your repeatable message, and one that possibly clouds your judgement. The route course for constant tax increases needs to be addressed and fixed, not just throwing money at it like the NHS. This mindset is crazy. The above is my opinion, what I would like to understand from you, is what does your ideal world look like? How is structured and paid for. I want to know how far left you are or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s assume the/a govt brought in a one off wealth tax to make up a shortfall during a crisis. Very emotive and as the majority of the people in the country would not be affected, likely to get support. Wherever the threshold is set, someone loses out by it being unfair. The normal cited example tends to be an elderly man/woman living in Islington in a Georgian/Victorian terrace house that they bought in the 60s for maybe £2k when Islington was a shithole. That house is easily now worth in excess of £2m+ and will have no mortgage. It doesn’t mean this old person is cash rich though, just asset rich. If they get hit by a wealth tax, how do they pay it? If they have “kids” then the house will be subject to IHT eventually anyway. What if the wealth tax is paid, does that provide some offset to the future IHT? For me the parameters are that primary home and pension should be off limits. However, as I said above, I am not supportive of a wealth tax purely on principle. How many times shall I repeat that you can exclude primary residence and pension and define a threshold. Is there a reason you continue to ignore that? Wealth taxes were widely instituted after WWII. What is the principle by which unearned wealth should continue to be accumulated in the hands of a small number of people through the generations? How much of a dent in wealth redistribution would a one or two percent one-off tax make ? From what I can see this is more about plugging a one-off gap in our finances. I get that. I get why the wealthy are the target. I'm not debating either of these positions. I don't see that it is practical as a one off tax. There is a lot of work to redo tax laws to avoid the iht loop holes you rightfully highlight. Do you know how long this would take ? Would the welathy be able to take preemptive steps to avoid this ? And the calculation will be immense. And put more money in a handful of accountants and lawyers. Forgetting the reasons why, do you truely believe this is workable and if so, how quickly could it be put in place ? What steps would be needed? A wealth tax is about filling one-off holes in finances in exceptional circumstances. Inheritance tax is about long term financial equilibrium (not equality) within a society. Yes it will be complex and difficult and require will. Perhaps it will take some time to accomplish. No, it doesn't have to benefit lawyers and accountants. However, if there is no political will, it will not happen. If you don't believe that there is substantial benefit in controlling huge inequalities in wealth and the undue power and influence that it brings then do nothing and say that it's impossible. If you do think there's a problem then start. If this solution is not right, then what is? Perhaps the welfare state or the NHS or free education should not have been introduced? They were too expensive and complicated too..." please stop the straw man I don't care about wealth redistribution. I see higher rates of iht as being better. How much of a dent do you see this one off tax having in welath redistribution. And I agree there needs to be will as it will take a log of effort. Again, I think this effort is better spent in IHT reform. Plus iht better supports welfare like schools and the NHS. Btw, puts a value on the wealthys wealth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it?" As I've already said. I have no objection to Income Tax, where people who earn more, pay more. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, where people that profit more, pay more. My problem with a wealth tax is that it is always proposed that it covers investments. It's manifestly unfair to tax an investment until there's some profit available to pay the tax from. As for Inheritance Tax - I'd be happy with abolishing the concept of inheritance altogether. People could then either give stuff to their kids while they are alive, or forfeit it all to the state when they die. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s assume the/a govt brought in a one off wealth tax to make up a shortfall during a crisis. Very emotive and as the majority of the people in the country would not be affected, likely to get support. Wherever the threshold is set, someone loses out by it being unfair. The normal cited example tends to be an elderly man/woman living in Islington in a Georgian/Victorian terrace house that they bought in the 60s for maybe £2k when Islington was a shithole. That house is easily now worth in excess of £2m+ and will have no mortgage. It doesn’t mean this old person is cash rich though, just asset rich. If they get hit by a wealth tax, how do they pay it? If they have “kids” then the house will be subject to IHT eventually anyway. What if the wealth tax is paid, does that provide some offset to the future IHT? For me the parameters are that primary home and pension should be off limits. However, as I said above, I am not supportive of a wealth tax purely on principle. How many times shall I repeat that you can exclude primary residence and pension and define a threshold. Is there a reason you continue to ignore that? Wealth taxes were widely instituted after WWII. What is the principle by which unearned wealth should continue to be accumulated in the hands of a small number of people through the generations?" Oh I only said about primary home and pension as I have not read every post or paid enough attention. Teach me to drop in and out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it? As I've already said. I have no objection to Income Tax, where people who earn more, pay more. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, where people that profit more, pay more. My problem with a wealth tax is that it is always proposed that it covers investments. It's manifestly unfair to tax an investment until there's some profit available to pay the tax from. As for Inheritance Tax - I'd be happy with abolishing the concept of inheritance altogether. People could then either give stuff to their kids while they are alive, or forfeit it all to the state when they die." Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do the wealthy paying more tax and contributing more to the society that they have benefited from mean that I "hate" them?" It doesn't. But your posts that bring up "huge inequalities in wealth", and "undue power and influence", and "concentrating wealth in a smaller and smaller group" might give people a clue as to your thinking. "Do you think it foolish to empathise with those in financial or social or physical hardship and believe it a good idea to help them and improve the opportunities of those who start at a disadvantage?" I have no problem with helping those that are in need. But that's not what you are proposing. You're proposing a one-off tax to grab some money off the rich to cover the country's debts. You've said nothing about using the money to improve the lot of the disadvantaged. "What a wealth tax does is rwduce unearned wealth, and consequently power and influence being accumulated in a small section of society to the detriment of others." See, there's that hatred again. No mention of helping the poor, just of bringing down the rich. "In exceptional circumstances, when the state has to step in to stabilise a nation it should again fall to the wealthiest, those who have benefited the most, to make the largest contribution to paying for that stability. What's your position?" I was in favour of Rishi Sunak's extra bit of National Insurance. It meant that everyone paid a bit extra. Those on low incomes paid a little bit, and those on high income paid a whole lot more. Simple to understand, simple to implement, and much fairer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. " I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour." Buy-to-let has created a cadre of landlords who actually cannot afford to be landlords. They are unable to absorb increases in mortgage rates. We should have rent control in the UK and build more social housing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour." I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this." I've never heard of anyone doing this before. I'm interested. What do they intend to do with the proceeds of the sale? How will it form part of their pension? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this." why aren't they planning to use rental income for their pension? Sounds like they have bought the house to crate gains. Feels fair these gains are taxed. As before I'd not allow BTL to be mortgaged. That would help rent prices more imo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this.why aren't they planning to use rental income for their pension? Sounds like they have bought the house to crate gains. Feels fair these gains are taxed. As before I'd not allow BTL to be mortgaged. That would help rent prices more imo. " Why would they use £1500 - £1750 a month, as income when they can put 550k in the bank? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this.why aren't they planning to use rental income for their pension? Sounds like they have bought the house to crate gains. Feels fair these gains are taxed. As before I'd not allow BTL to be mortgaged. That would help rent prices more imo. Why would they use £1500 - £1750 a month, as income when they can put 550k in the bank?" I assumed they needed income. Why sell an appreciating asset to stick the money in a bank ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this.why aren't they planning to use rental income for their pension? Sounds like they have bought the house to crate gains. Feels fair these gains are taxed. As before I'd not allow BTL to be mortgaged. That would help rent prices more imo. Why would they use £1500 - £1750 a month, as income when they can put 550k in the bank?I assumed they needed income. Why sell an appreciating asset to stick the money in a bank ?" A few reasons: It is a lump sum, that is going to be used to live off, holidays and enjoying the latter part of life. Renting a house comes with complications and in retirement, they don't need the stress and worries. The point is being missed here. Because of capital gains tax, the rent has been adjusted to minimise the loss. The sale of the house will come with approx £92K in capital gains tax. You can see now how much extra rent would have been added to cover this. It is always those that can't afford it that end up paying it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because of capital gains tax, the rent has been adjusted to minimise the loss. The sale of the house will come with approx £92K in capital gains tax. You can see now how much extra rent would have been added to cover this." I still don't think this is the case. You can only get the rent that the market is willing to pay. If you increased your rent above the market price, just to cover your CGR liability, you'd find that the renter's would all go elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because of capital gains tax, the rent has been adjusted to minimise the loss. The sale of the house will come with approx £92K in capital gains tax. You can see now how much extra rent would have been added to cover this. I still don't think this is the case. You can only get the rent that the market is willing to pay. If you increased your rent above the market price, just to cover your CGR liability, you'd find that the renter's would all go elsewhere." Jumping in here with a possibly naive question... Isn’t that part of the problem for renters though...they often cannot go elsewhere! There is an imbalance between stock and demand. The “market” for rent is overheated and too high with BTL landlords looking to cover all their costs through the rent received. 10-15yr mortgages instead of 25yr. Additional amounts to cover other expenses. Increasing rent when mortgages increase. Covering CGT. As I said above, lots of BTL landlords cannot actually afford to be landlords as have no cushion to absorb tough times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because of capital gains tax, the rent has been adjusted to minimise the loss. The sale of the house will come with approx £92K in capital gains tax. You can see now how much extra rent would have been added to cover this. I still don't think this is the case. You can only get the rent that the market is willing to pay. If you increased your rent above the market price, just to cover your CGR liability, you'd find that the renter's would all go elsewhere." I'm confident this is fact and the rental market is high because of this factor and many more factors. Have you looked at rental property costs in London? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. I know of at least 4 people who have purchased a property, rent it out and will be selling it to form part of their pension. The intention was not to charge huge amounts and live / make off the rent but to look at the house as a lump sum, however they increased the rent to cover the capital gains tax. If I'm the average joe, how many others are doing this.why aren't they planning to use rental income for their pension? Sounds like they have bought the house to crate gains. Feels fair these gains are taxed. As before I'd not allow BTL to be mortgaged. That would help rent prices more imo. Why would they use £1500 - £1750 a month, as income when they can put 550k in the bank?I assumed they needed income. Why sell an appreciating asset to stick the money in a bank ? A few reasons: It is a lump sum, that is going to be used to live off, holidays and enjoying the latter part of life. Renting a house comes with complications and in retirement, they don't need the stress and worries. The point is being missed here. Because of capital gains tax, the rent has been adjusted to minimise the loss. The sale of the house will come with approx £92K in capital gains tax. You can see now how much extra rent would have been added to cover this. It is always those that can't afford it that end up paying it." if you're making 200k in gains and still pass on tax bills to your tenants, I do wonder if you'd reduce the rents if there was lower cgt. I do take your point it's factored in and often the consumer pays. But this does help to make a mortgage more attractive than renting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because of capital gains tax, the rent has been adjusted to minimise the loss. The sale of the house will come with approx £92K in capital gains tax. You can see now how much extra rent would have been added to cover this." "I still don't think this is the case. You can only get the rent that the market is willing to pay. If you increased your rent above the market price, just to cover your CGR liability, you'd find that the renter's would all go elsewhere." "I'm confident this is fact and the rental market is high because of this factor and many more factors. Have you looked at rental property costs in London? " No, all of my experience is in semi-rural areas. I can see that the market might be different in London. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour." I have to agree with Mr Discretion here. In addition the long term increase in property values more than offsets any tax due on the gain. My view is by all means inheritance tax is fine. Pension profit fine, investments profits generally fine. Taxing based on asset value alone is not fair or efficient. If you don’t have the cash how are you expected to pay? Maybe inheritance could be more in line with capitol gains so a £2k terrace selling for £2m pays a hefty price . It’s unearned income after all. I don’t have strong or informed enough information to argue this point strongly. I personally would triple second home council tax . ( it’s a choice remember not a primary home) . Tax foreign owned property annually to slow the buy to let mega developments . Tighten money movements to stop exporting profit. Make global companies pay their due tax in the country of generation. Starbucks Amazon etc take one step forward. Stop non dom status. Move away from trickle down economics it doesn’t work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it? As I've already said. I have no objection to Income Tax, where people who earn more, pay more. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, where people that profit more, pay more. My problem with a wealth tax is that it is always proposed that it covers investments. It's manifestly unfair to tax an investment until there's some profit available to pay the tax from. As for Inheritance Tax - I'd be happy with abolishing the concept of inheritance altogether. People could then either give stuff to their kids while they are alive, or forfeit it all to the state when they die. Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. " BS The "huge" amount of tax is a proportion of the actual gain in capital. The clue is in the name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. I don't think that's the case. I think people that buy properties for the rental income, intend to keep them for the rest of their life. They have no intention of selling so they don't consider CGT. On the other hand, buy-to-let mortgages have massively driven up rents, as people with a small amount of money buy up properties with the intention of getting a renter to pay the mortgage for them. Despicable behaviour. I have to agree with Mr Discretion here. In addition the long term increase in property values more than offsets any tax due on the gain. My view is by all means inheritance tax is fine. Pension profit fine, investments profits generally fine. Taxing based on asset value alone is not fair or efficient. If you don’t have the cash how are you expected to pay? Maybe inheritance could be more in line with capitol gains so a £2k terrace selling for £2m pays a hefty price . It’s unearned income after all. I don’t have strong or informed enough information to argue this point strongly. I personally would triple second home council tax . ( it’s a choice remember not a primary home) . Tax foreign owned property annually to slow the buy to let mega developments . Tighten money movements to stop exporting profit. Make global companies pay their due tax in the country of generation. Starbucks Amazon etc take one step forward. Stop non dom status. Move away from trickle down economics it doesn’t work. " Generally seems reasonable, so the question is why isn't it happening? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do the wealthy paying more tax and contributing more to the society that they have benefited from mean that I "hate" them? It doesn't. But your posts that bring up "huge inequalities in wealth", and "undue power and influence", and "concentrating wealth in a smaller and smaller group" might give people a clue as to your thinking. Do you think it foolish to empathise with those in financial or social or physical hardship and believe it a good idea to help them and improve the opportunities of those who start at a disadvantage? I have no problem with helping those that are in need. But that's not what you are proposing. You're proposing a one-off tax to grab some money off the rich to cover the country's debts. You've said nothing about using the money to improve the lot of the disadvantaged. What a wealth tax does is rwduce unearned wealth, and consequently power and influence being accumulated in a small section of society to the detriment of others. See, there's that hatred again. No mention of helping the poor, just of bringing down the rich. In exceptional circumstances, when the state has to step in to stabilise a nation it should again fall to the wealthiest, those who have benefited the most, to make the largest contribution to paying for that stability. What's your position? I was in favour of Rishi Sunak's extra bit of National Insurance. It meant that everyone paid a bit extra. Those on low incomes paid a little bit, and those on high income paid a whole lot more. Simple to understand, simple to implement, and much fairer." Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. Reducing the influence of the wealthy to selfishly benefit themselves is a good thing, isn't it? Explain to me how it's bad. You just want a little minor tinkering on PAYE taxes which the wealthy do not pay. Nice for the rich. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it? As I've already said. I have no objection to Income Tax, where people who earn more, pay more. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, where people that profit more, pay more. My problem with a wealth tax is that it is always proposed that it covers investments. It's manifestly unfair to tax an investment until there's some profit available to pay the tax from. As for Inheritance Tax - I'd be happy with abolishing the concept of inheritance altogether. People could then either give stuff to their kids while they are alive, or forfeit it all to the state when they die. Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. BS The "huge" amount of tax is a proportion of the actual gain in capital. The clue is in the name." Blinkered | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it? As I've already said. I have no objection to Income Tax, where people who earn more, pay more. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, where people that profit more, pay more. My problem with a wealth tax is that it is always proposed that it covers investments. It's manifestly unfair to tax an investment until there's some profit available to pay the tax from. As for Inheritance Tax - I'd be happy with abolishing the concept of inheritance altogether. People could then either give stuff to their kids while they are alive, or forfeit it all to the state when they die. Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. BS The "huge" amount of tax is a proportion of the actual gain in capital. The clue is in the name. Blinkered " That can work both ways. Hardly a clinching argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them." I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. "I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services." You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. "The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet?" That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You, apparently believe that all wealth taxes are inherently bad, so it doesn't matter what form it takes, does it? As I've already said. I have no objection to Income Tax, where people who earn more, pay more. I have no problem with Capital Gains Tax, where people that profit more, pay more. My problem with a wealth tax is that it is always proposed that it covers investments. It's manifestly unfair to tax an investment until there's some profit available to pay the tax from. As for Inheritance Tax - I'd be happy with abolishing the concept of inheritance altogether. People could then either give stuff to their kids while they are alive, or forfeit it all to the state when they die. Capital gains tax makes home renting more expensive, if not unaffordable. That tax is baked in the monthly rent, landlords who are buying for their future pension pot need to cover huge amounts in tax, that ends up in the rent of those that can least afford it, in many cases. BS The "huge" amount of tax is a proportion of the actual gain in capital. The clue is in the name. Blinkered That can work both ways. Hardly a clinching argument." Isn't it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From a slightly different angle, how much would this proposed wealth tax collect and how much would it cost to set up and administer. I see it will not include property or pensions which is good (in my opinion) so what would the final amount raised be. I assume if it's a one off tax and its to plug the covid hole the amount raised will be substantial. Could this be used again to fund the energy cap to in a couple of years" depends on the level set and tax rate used. The wealth report (which did include pensions and homes btw, Easy has excluded them from his wealth tax) had 146bn if the limit was £1m (c top 6pc of population) and the tax rate on amounts above £1m was 5pc. That would be spread over five years at least. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well?" You literally made up the "fact" in your head that I " hate" rich people. On the basis that you know zero about me other than what you've read here through your own filter, it is quite amusing
Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society.
Did I really write what you have placed in quotation marks? Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited.
Some are bastards. What's your point? We should let them continue to hoard their wealth and f*CK the rest of society? Is that a good thing? Why shouldn't the rich person pay at least the same percentage in tax as anybody else?
Much of society pays everything that is due. I'm not happy that many of the wealthiest don't. Quite frankly if you are rich paying some more tax will inconvenience you. It won't make you or your children hungry.
What's your position on that choice?
You are going to have to try harder to pretend that I'm as selfish as you are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From a slightly different angle, how much would this proposed wealth tax collect and how much would it cost to set up and administer. I see it will not include property or pensions which is good (in my opinion) so what would the final amount raised be. I assume if it's a one off tax and its to plug the covid hole the amount raised will be substantial. Could this be used again to fund the energy cap to in a couple of yearsdepends on the level set and tax rate used. The wealth report (which did include pensions and homes btw, Easy has excluded them from his wealth tax) had 146bn if the limit was £1m (c top 6pc of population) and the tax rate on amounts above £1m was 5pc. That would be spread over five years at least. " You can apply your own intelligence and thought to any report. Why do you need to implement it I'm full of you feel it requires further thought? Still a lot of money raised. If they leave, do we, as a country, want those people? They aren't paying their share anyway... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well? You literally made up the "fact" in your head that I " hate" rich people. On the basis that you know zero about me other than what you've read here through your own filter, it is quite amusing
Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society.
Did I really write what you have placed in quotation marks? Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited.
Some are bastards. What's your point? We should let them continue to hoard their wealth and f*CK the rest of society? Is that a good thing? Why shouldn't the rich person pay at least the same percentage in tax as anybody else?
Much of society pays everything that is due. I'm not happy that many of the wealthiest don't. Quite frankly if you are rich paying some more tax will inconvenience you. It won't make you or your children hungry.
What's your position on that choice?
You are going to have to try harder to pretend that I'm as selfish as you are "where does your taxation reach a limit? Would it be when the entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and anyone stupid enough to try and make a better life for themselves and others decides your vision isn't worth putting up with? Playing Robin Hood on a forum is cute
Try to answer my question, not react to the emotion. When would you consider addressing issues of mismanagement or broken policies, over taking money away from people to provide an easy fix, that never works?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From a slightly different angle, how much would this proposed wealth tax collect and how much would it cost to set up and administer. I see it will not include property or pensions which is good (in my opinion) so what would the final amount raised be. I assume if it's a one off tax and its to plug the covid hole the amount raised will be substantial. Could this be used again to fund the energy cap to in a couple of yearsdepends on the level set and tax rate used. The wealth report (which did include pensions and homes btw, Easy has excluded them from his wealth tax) had 146bn if the limit was £1m (c top 6pc of population) and the tax rate on amounts above £1m was 5pc. That would be spread over five years at least. You can apply your own intelligence and thought to any report. Why do you need to implement it I'm full of you feel it requires further thought? Still a lot of money raised. If they leave, do we, as a country, want those people? They aren't paying their share anyway..." was that replying to me? I simply was replaying what the report said. I didn't mention anyone leaving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society." Except for all of the places where you said that it would just be a one-off tax to pay for the extra debt incurred due to CoViD. Even when you do post about narrowing the gap, it's always about taking from the rich. Despite several reminders, you haven't once mentioned giving to the poor, or discussed who should benefit, or how you propose to see that happen. So, are you proposing a one-off wealth tax to cover the costs of CoViD, or are you proposing an annual wealth tax to provide benefits to the financially disadvantaged? "Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited. Some are bastards. What's your point?" My point is that you seem to think that the fact that some rich people are bastards justifies punishing all rich people. I disagree. I think that you should not punish people for taking advantage of the law. Even if they do behave in a reprehensible way. If you don't like what they're doing, get the law changed to make it illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well? You literally made up the "fact" in your head that I " hate" rich people. On the basis that you know zero about me other than what you've read here through your own filter, it is quite amusing
Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society.
Did I really write what you have placed in quotation marks? Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited.
Some are bastards. What's your point? We should let them continue to hoard their wealth and f*CK the rest of society? Is that a good thing? Why shouldn't the rich person pay at least the same percentage in tax as anybody else?
Much of society pays everything that is due. I'm not happy that many of the wealthiest don't. Quite frankly if you are rich paying some more tax will inconvenience you. It won't make you or your children hungry.
What's your position on that choice?
You are going to have to try harder to pretend that I'm as selfish as you are
where does your taxation reach a limit? Would it be when the entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and anyone stupid enough to try and make a better life for themselves and others decides your vision isn't worth putting up with?
Playing Robin Hood on a forum is cute
Try to answer my question, not react to the emotion. When would you consider addressing issues of mismanagement or broken policies, over taking money away from people to provide an easy fix, that never works?
"That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset "Yet another post full of vitriol, and baseless insults. No attempt at answering the question that was asked. No attempt at explaining how anyone would benefit from a wealth tax. Just bitterness about people that he considers "don't pay their fair share". And he wonders why people think he hates the rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset
Yet another post full of vitriol, and baseless insults. No attempt at answering the question that was asked. No attempt at explaining how anyone would benefit from a wealth tax. Just bitterness about people that he considers "don't pay their fair share".
And he wonders why people think he hates the rich." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement" You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset
Yet another post full of vitriol, and baseless insults. No attempt at answering the question that was asked. No attempt at explaining how anyone would benefit from a wealth tax. Just bitterness about people that he considers "don't pay their fair share".
And he wonders why people think he hates the rich."The more you rant, the less interesting you are. You have gone so far off track just trying to paint me as you want to see me that you are becoming non-sensical. Either you believe that everyone should contribute taxes so that society can function or you don't. Either you believe that the wealthy should pay at least as much of the rest of us, or you don't. Either you feel that society should try to do something about that, or you don't. If Governments get the money that they are due from companies and wealthy individuals without playing games then they could spend on all of the things we all need. Why you feel that me not listing individual benefits to those in need is just weird. Public sector workers earning salaries that are appropriate to the cost be of living. Well funded schools and health and social care. Roads without potholes. Adequate numbers of Police, medical, fire, civil service and council staff to have time to do their jobs properly on decent conditions. Enough council properties for everyone to be accommodated. Adequate provision of food for those who are hungry. Up to date military equipment, properly maintained and adequate accommodation for troops. Investment in infrastructure and research. That's part of the list of things that Government could do better if everyone contributed fairly, as they should. If you and Blu don't want that, then fine but just say that. Don't try and tell me that the intention of the wealthy paying their fair share means that I "hate" the rich because it's an utter nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From a slightly different angle, how much would this proposed wealth tax collect and how much would it cost to set up and administer. I see it will not include property or pensions which is good (in my opinion) so what would the final amount raised be. I assume if it's a one off tax and its to plug the covid hole the amount raised will be substantial. Could this be used again to fund the energy cap to in a couple of yearsdepends on the level set and tax rate used. The wealth report (which did include pensions and homes btw, Easy has excluded them from his wealth tax) had 146bn if the limit was £1m (c top 6pc of population) and the tax rate on amounts above £1m was 5pc. That would be spread over five years at least. You can apply your own intelligence and thought to any report. Why do you need to implement it I'm full of you feel it requires further thought? Still a lot of money raised. If they leave, do we, as a country, want those people? They aren't paying their share anyway...was that replying to me? I simply was replaying what the report said. I didn't mention anyone leaving. " I was anticipating the response that sure enough follows soon after when people claim that everyone will leave the country. The reality is that those who do most of the hard work pay their taxes. When they become rich they tend to try to hide them or leave the country anyway. Philip Green, James Dyson, Jim Ratcliffe as conspicuous examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?" this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. " A one off wealth tax isn't for that. The discussion is wandering quite a lot and I am reacting to some wild accusations. Everyone paying an appropriate level of tax, one way or the other helps everyone. Even big corporations and the rich. Possibly even more so because a more prosperous country creates more wealth and depending and, and, and... One off taxes in crises may not even be necessary if everyone pitched in as they should. You can only deal with where you are and if you need a short-term solution you may need a short-term answer whilst you do the hard work of getting the right solution. COVID and the energy crisis are extraordinary by any measure as far as one-off events are concerned. However, as usual, Government tends to go after those who have no choice but to pay their taxes either in PAYE increases or below inflation wage rises for the public sector... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading this . I wonder what is the rich, wealthy amount to qualify . IE earning / assets over a million ? As in 2019 I think over 350 millionaires were made by winning UK lottery . Tax I agree has to be paid by all , including companies. Others have said about Amazon , Starbucks etc. The only way to ensure this if possible ? Each company has to have a UK registered company and all profits from UK earnings can then be paid in tax from UK earnings ? So not having parent company somewhere with less tax etc. No UK tax or very little. How many companies like Starbucks etc would leave UK ? I am a pensioner , yes apart from government pension have private ones. But get taxed on them. Which I see as unfair. " I don't disagree with most of your post. The last bit is interesting, because many people agree with fair taxation except when it comes to themselves
What is your rationale for not paying.
You've paid tax free into a private pension for decades. You get an income as a consequence. Progressive income tax is a pretty fair system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading this . I wonder what is the rich, wealthy amount to qualify . IE earning / assets over a million ? As in 2019 I think over 350 millionaires were made by winning UK lottery . Tax I agree has to be paid by all , including companies. Others have said about Amazon , Starbucks etc. The only way to ensure this if possible ? Each company has to have a UK registered company and all profits from UK earnings can then be paid in tax from UK earnings ? So not having parent company somewhere with less tax etc. No UK tax or very little. How many companies like Starbucks etc would leave UK ? I am a pensioner , yes apart from government pension have private ones. But get taxed on them. Which I see as unfair. " Amazon and Starbucks and everyone else would not leave the UK. They are here because they make a lot of money here and would still make a lot of money paying all of their taxes as intended rather than gamed. The same for many rich individuals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well? You literally made up the "fact" in your head that I " hate" rich people. On the basis that you know zero about me other than what you've read here through your own filter, it is quite amusing
Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society.
Did I really write what you have placed in quotation marks? Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited.
Some are bastards. What's your point? We should let them continue to hoard their wealth and f*CK the rest of society? Is that a good thing? Why shouldn't the rich person pay at least the same percentage in tax as anybody else?
Much of society pays everything that is due. I'm not happy that many of the wealthiest don't. Quite frankly if you are rich paying some more tax will inconvenience you. It won't make you or your children hungry.
What's your position on that choice?
You are going to have to try harder to pretend that I'm as selfish as you are
where does your taxation reach a limit? Would it be when the entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and anyone stupid enough to try and make a better life for themselves and others decides your vision isn't worth putting up with?
Playing Robin Hood on a forum is cute
Try to answer my question, not react to the emotion. When would you consider addressing issues of mismanagement or broken policies, over taking money away from people to provide an easy fix, that never works?
That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset "I'm not rich in the grand scheme of things, I never said I was, but you have absolutely no idea of my wealth or the amount of tax, taxes I pay other than flimsy assumptions you make. Achieving, being successful takes a lot of effort but you would rather sit back do nothing and force those making an effort to give it away, because they have been successful... On another thread you came across as an employee who knows better than everyone else, more than subject matter experts employed to deliver specific and specialised solutions. I'm not sure why you are so bitter towards success and people who are successful, why such spite? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. A one off wealth tax isn't for that. The discussion is wandering quite a lot and I am reacting to some wild accusations. Everyone paying an appropriate level of tax, one way or the other helps everyone. Even big corporations and the rich. Possibly even more so because a more prosperous country creates more wealth and depending and, and, and... One off taxes in crises may not even be necessary if everyone pitched in as they should. You can only deal with where you are and if you need a short-term solution you may need a short-term answer whilst you do the hard work of getting the right solution. COVID and the energy crisis are extraordinary by any measure as far as one-off events are concerned. However, as usual, Government tends to go after those who have no choice but to pay their taxes either in PAYE increases or below inflation wage rises for the public sector..." it has meandered which is why I'm feeling people are arguing at cross purposes. When debating the one off tax, some were then suggesting I didn't want to close the gap because I saw challenges with the tax. For me the long term strategy is to seek to get all income taxed at a fair level, have a wealth tax that redistributes wealth (as imo our large class inequality is driven by wealth not income) and to have a sovereign fund to create somethi gbwe can use in times of crisis (as even with a fair system, if you always spend what you tax, you never have a cushion) Closing corporate tax loop holes will be a challenge. Possibly have NI rates based on companies earnings or employees, rather than rely on corporation tax. (a from the hip idea) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well? You literally made up the "fact" in your head that I " hate" rich people. On the basis that you know zero about me other than what you've read here through your own filter, it is quite amusing
Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society.
Did I really write what you have placed in quotation marks? Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited.
Some are bastards. What's your point? We should let them continue to hoard their wealth and f*CK the rest of society? Is that a good thing? Why shouldn't the rich person pay at least the same percentage in tax as anybody else?
Much of society pays everything that is due. I'm not happy that many of the wealthiest don't. Quite frankly if you are rich paying some more tax will inconvenience you. It won't make you or your children hungry.
What's your position on that choice?
You are going to have to try harder to pretend that I'm as selfish as you are
where does your taxation reach a limit? Would it be when the entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and anyone stupid enough to try and make a better life for themselves and others decides your vision isn't worth putting up with?
Playing Robin Hood on a forum is cute
Try to answer my question, not react to the emotion. When would you consider addressing issues of mismanagement or broken policies, over taking money away from people to provide an easy fix, that never works?
That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset
I'm not rich in the grand scheme of things, I never said I was, but you have absolutely no idea of my wealth or the amount of tax, taxes I pay other than flimsy assumptions you make.
Achieving, being successful takes a lot of effort but you would rather sit back do nothing and force those making an effort to give it away, because they have been successful...
On another thread you came across as an employee who knows better than everyone else, more than subject matter experts employed to deliver specific and specialised solutions.
I'm not sure why you are so bitter towards success and people who are successful, why such spite? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now you are just making things up to allow you to view people who disagree with you in a way that allows you to dismiss them. I've not made up anything. Call me out if you have any evidence. I don't need to make things up to dismiss your opinion. You introduced the idea of a wealth tax, and then dismissed all of the points in your original posts by saying they weren't relevant. I shouldn't need to explain how the disadvantaged will be helped with more money for education and public services. You don't need to explain that, but you've said that the wealth tax is just to help lower the national debt after CoViD. You even used the word 'hypothecated'. Not once have you said that the money raised by a wealth tax should be used to help the disadvantaged. The point of the discussion on any form of wealth tax is that the rich barely pay income tax. Have you not grasped that yet? That's only true because you are defining 'the rich' as 'those bastards that don't pay their fair share'. There are plenty of wealthy people that do pay everything that's due, and in some cases even pay extra. Are you happy for your wealth tax to punish them as well? You literally made up the "fact" in your head that I " hate" rich people. On the basis that you know zero about me other than what you've read here through your own filter, it is quite amusing
Why do I need to state that it must be spent on poor people? Almost everything I've written has been about re-balancing the gap in wealth and the imbalance providing an unearned generational advantage to a small group in society.
Did I really write what you have placed in quotation marks? Some rich people are very willing to pay in, knowing full well what they have benefited.
Some are bastards. What's your point? We should let them continue to hoard their wealth and f*CK the rest of society? Is that a good thing? Why shouldn't the rich person pay at least the same percentage in tax as anybody else?
Much of society pays everything that is due. I'm not happy that many of the wealthiest don't. Quite frankly if you are rich paying some more tax will inconvenience you. It won't make you or your children hungry.
What's your position on that choice?
You are going to have to try harder to pretend that I'm as selfish as you are
where does your taxation reach a limit? Would it be when the entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and anyone stupid enough to try and make a better life for themselves and others decides your vision isn't worth putting up with?
Playing Robin Hood on a forum is cute
Try to answer my question, not react to the emotion. When would you consider addressing issues of mismanagement or broken policies, over taking money away from people to provide an easy fix, that never works?
That is always the ludicrous extreme of any discussion about taxing the really wealthy at a rate commensurate with the rest of us
If you are paid a salary you pay all of your income tax. That is most people, however big your salary is.
If you are an entrepreneur and you've made a lot of money then you can damn well contribute to the country that gave you that opportunity at the same rate that everyone else does.
There would not need to be any discussion about a wealth tax of everyone paid their dues. As they choose not to, then other routes have to be followed when the national finances hit the buffers in a crisis.
Do you want the rich to pay less of their income in tax than everyone else?
This is all about the rich paying their fair share, not being punished or "hated".
Get a grip.
You are not rich, but perhaps you think that you are and that's why you're so upset
I'm not rich in the grand scheme of things, I never said I was, but you have absolutely no idea of my wealth or the amount of tax, taxes I pay other than flimsy assumptions you make.
Achieving, being successful takes a lot of effort but you would rather sit back do nothing and force those making an effort to give it away, because they have been successful...
On another thread you came across as an employee who knows better than everyone else, more than subject matter experts employed to deliver specific and specialised solutions.
I'm not sure why you are so bitter towards success and people who are successful, why such spite? "The same argument coming through. If you feel that the wealthy should contribute to all of the factors that brought them their success through luck as much as judgement, then you must "hate" the rich and be "lady" want a "free ride". You are more than a little bit wrong and enormously patronising about me, but that is not uncommon for those who believe that all of their success is purely down to their superior effort and intelligence. This is nothing more than expecting everyone to pay their fair share and when times are tough for the wealthy to contribute more because, quite frankly, they can afford to without noticing. At this point in time I can afford to pay a few more pence in the pound and a vaguely competent Government could do far more good with it that any individual giving a little bit more to a charity. However, if you don't feel that this country and society in general is a joint effort then you hoard your pennies and enjoy their warmth in your heart  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. A one off wealth tax isn't for that. The discussion is wandering quite a lot and I am reacting to some wild accusations. Everyone paying an appropriate level of tax, one way or the other helps everyone. Even big corporations and the rich. Possibly even more so because a more prosperous country creates more wealth and depending and, and, and... One off taxes in crises may not even be necessary if everyone pitched in as they should. You can only deal with where you are and if you need a short-term solution you may need a short-term answer whilst you do the hard work of getting the right solution. COVID and the energy crisis are extraordinary by any measure as far as one-off events are concerned. However, as usual, Government tends to go after those who have no choice but to pay their taxes either in PAYE increases or below inflation wage rises for the public sector...it has meandered which is why I'm feeling people are arguing at cross purposes. When debating the one off tax, some were then suggesting I didn't want to close the gap because I saw challenges with the tax. For me the long term strategy is to seek to get all income taxed at a fair level, have a wealth tax that redistributes wealth (as imo our large class inequality is driven by wealth not income) and to have a sovereign fund to create somethi gbwe can use in times of crisis (as even with a fair system, if you always spend what you tax, you never have a cushion) Closing corporate tax loop holes will be a challenge. Possibly have NI rates based on companies earnings or employees, rather than rely on corporation tax. (a from the hip idea)" Agreed. Income and corporation tax to keep society running and provide the conditions for prosperity. Inheritance (wealth) tax to reduce unearned inequality. Corporate windfall or additional wealth taxes in crisis. I guess some will disagree. Interested to know why if it doesn't involve telling me that I "hate" rich people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. A one off wealth tax isn't for that. The discussion is wandering quite a lot and I am reacting to some wild accusations. Everyone paying an appropriate level of tax, one way or the other helps everyone. Even big corporations and the rich. Possibly even more so because a more prosperous country creates more wealth and depending and, and, and... One off taxes in crises may not even be necessary if everyone pitched in as they should. You can only deal with where you are and if you need a short-term solution you may need a short-term answer whilst you do the hard work of getting the right solution. COVID and the energy crisis are extraordinary by any measure as far as one-off events are concerned. However, as usual, Government tends to go after those who have no choice but to pay their taxes either in PAYE increases or below inflation wage rises for the public sector...it has meandered which is why I'm feeling people are arguing at cross purposes. When debating the one off tax, some were then suggesting I didn't want to close the gap because I saw challenges with the tax. For me the long term strategy is to seek to get all income taxed at a fair level, have a wealth tax that redistributes wealth (as imo our large class inequality is driven by wealth not income) and to have a sovereign fund to create somethi gbwe can use in times of crisis (as even with a fair system, if you always spend what you tax, you never have a cushion) Closing corporate tax loop holes will be a challenge. Possibly have NI rates based on companies earnings or employees, rather than rely on corporation tax. (a from the hip idea) Agreed. Income and corporation tax to keep society running and provide the conditions for prosperity. Inheritance (wealth) tax to reduce unearned inequality. Corporate windfall or additional wealth taxes in crisis. I guess some will disagree. Interested to know why if it doesn't involve telling me that I "hate" rich people "Lol because you screaming at the top of your lungs. Yet fail to realize more government is not the answer. Why are venezuelan people coming here in droves then? The economic powerhouse because of "rich" people's investments. Not government controlled ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. A one off wealth tax isn't for that. The discussion is wandering quite a lot and I am reacting to some wild accusations. Everyone paying an appropriate level of tax, one way or the other helps everyone. Even big corporations and the rich. Possibly even more so because a more prosperous country creates more wealth and depending and, and, and... One off taxes in crises may not even be necessary if everyone pitched in as they should. You can only deal with where you are and if you need a short-term solution you may need a short-term answer whilst you do the hard work of getting the right solution. COVID and the energy crisis are extraordinary by any measure as far as one-off events are concerned. However, as usual, Government tends to go after those who have no choice but to pay their taxes either in PAYE increases or below inflation wage rises for the public sector...it has meandered which is why I'm feeling people are arguing at cross purposes. When debating the one off tax, some were then suggesting I didn't want to close the gap because I saw challenges with the tax. For me the long term strategy is to seek to get all income taxed at a fair level, have a wealth tax that redistributes wealth (as imo our large class inequality is driven by wealth not income) and to have a sovereign fund to create somethi gbwe can use in times of crisis (as even with a fair system, if you always spend what you tax, you never have a cushion) Closing corporate tax loop holes will be a challenge. Possibly have NI rates based on companies earnings or employees, rather than rely on corporation tax. (a from the hip idea) Agreed. Income and corporation tax to keep society running and provide the conditions for prosperity. Inheritance (wealth) tax to reduce unearned inequality. Corporate windfall or additional wealth taxes in crisis. I guess some will disagree. Interested to know why if it doesn't involve telling me that I "hate" rich people
Lol because you screaming at the top of your lungs. Yet fail to realize more government is not the answer. Why are venezuelan people coming here in droves then? The economic powerhouse because of "rich" people's investments. Not government controlled ones. "I read that a while back, in France the then president went down the road of penalising successful people who had become wealthy with heavy tax increases. The result was they moved out of France and a lot came to London. Apparently there was more French people in London than anywhere outside of France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure this would work without penalising those rich people that do pay their full taxes. Previously mentioned has been rich people who do pay and the so called barstards with unearned wealth. How will it be checked who falls into each category and how is that funded. Or will it be penalise them all despite some having already paid in full. Still not heard the potential amount it would generate or how much it would cost to implement You are allowed to think about alternatives to a theoretical plan. Perhaps your first filter is how much income and tax has been declared? If it seems like they meet that 35% base payment relative to assets, then HMRC takes a decision? It's just a report an idea. Imperfect, but with some merit. The other option seems to be let them carry on as they do. Is that a better outcome?this seems to have evolved from wealth redistribution to ensuring people pay their fair share of income tax. I see a proper wealth tax as being something that would also redistrubute generational wealth. A one off tax doesn't seem an intuitive way to reclaim missed income tax. Do we need to agree who we are targeting and why ? Is it those who are earning, but finding ways of reducing their tax bill. Or thsoe who aren't earning, but have the wealth to live well regardless. Is this to raise tax for a one off cost (although there often seems to be one off costs!). Or is it more a principal of wealth equalisation. As it's probably "all of the abovee" what weights are we putting on them. A one off wealth tax isn't for that. The discussion is wandering quite a lot and I am reacting to some wild accusations. Everyone paying an appropriate level of tax, one way or the other helps everyone. Even big corporations and the rich. Possibly even more so because a more prosperous country creates more wealth and depending and, and, and... One off taxes in crises may not even be necessary if everyone pitched in as they should. You can only deal with where you are and if you need a short-term solution you may need a short-term answer whilst you do the hard work of getting the right solution. COVID and the energy crisis are extraordinary by any measure as far as one-off events are concerned. However, as usual, Government tends to go after those who have no choice but to pay their taxes either in PAYE increases or below inflation wage rises for the public sector...it has meandered which is why I'm feeling people are arguing at cross purposes. When debating the one off tax, some were then suggesting I didn't want to close the gap because I saw challenges with the tax. For me the long term strategy is to seek to get all income taxed at a fair level, have a wealth tax that redistributes wealth (as imo our large class inequality is driven by wealth not income) and to have a sovereign fund to create somethi gbwe can use in times of crisis (as even with a fair system, if you always spend what you tax, you never have a cushion) Closing corporate tax loop holes will be a challenge. Possibly have NI rates based on companies earnings or employees, rather than rely on corporation tax. (a from the hip idea) Agreed. Income and corporation tax to keep society running and provide the conditions for prosperity. Inheritance (wealth) tax to reduce unearned inequality. Corporate windfall or additional wealth taxes in crisis. I guess some will disagree. Interested to know why if it doesn't involve telling me that I "hate" rich people
Lol because you screaming at the top of your lungs. Yet fail to realize more government is not the answer. Why are venezuelan people coming here in droves then? The economic powerhouse because of "rich" people's investments. Not government controlled ones. "As usual, you seem confused and incoherent and attempting to relate this discussion to a completely unrelated topic. I just do not understand your attempts at communication. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
