Time limited tax for the rich

[pap]

With the politicians away on their summer hols and SaintsWeb fully invested in the potential transfer of Gaston Ramirez, little consideration has been given to matters Parliamentary. Nick Clegg is in the news today, proposing an emergency time-limited tax on the wealthy to get the country out of the sh!te.

 

Guardian article here:-

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-tax-britains-weathiest

 

Good idea, or populist nonsense that'll see more of our mega-wealthy move shiploads of cash out of the economy?

[itchen]

Poor old Cleggy, desperately trying to say something to take him back to the days of "I agree with Nick". But nobody's fooled any more. If he really wants more tax on the super wealthy why did he support cutting the 50% tax rate? This is just trying to look important while knowing full well there's not a chance of it happening.

[Wade Garrett]

He's an embarrassment, just like his party. They'll get wiped out at the next election.

[pap]

Gotta say, in two minds about this myself. The idealist in me thinks it's a great idea. Short term, sort it out, bish bash bosh, etc.

 

The cynic just says it's a bridgehead to get noticed.

 

Dispensing with the personality, I think the merits of the policy are pretty good. Just not sure about the motives, is all.

[badgerx16]

Why not just close the loopholes that they use to avoid it in the first place ?

[so22saint]

why not go after the corporates like Google and Amazon who avoid tax in the UK? oh yeah! because individuals are easier to imprison....

[thefunkygibbons]

Bad idea

 

Politicians should speak to technicians in the tax department about what happens in these circumstances

 

Last time the rate when up to 50%, rich people brought forward income so it was taxed at a lower rate and when there is an announcement of a drop coming they delay income.

 

Those of you who have wealthy bosses should know that beyond a regular payment to pay the bills, business owners have some flexibility as to when they take income and can delay it until the tax circumstances are better. In some cases, they will delay for years so it is realised as capital gains, rather than as income

 

It is not all about people moving to foreign countries

[itchen]

Bad idea

 

Politicians should speak to technicians in the tax department about what happens in these circumstances

 

Last time the rate when up to 50%, rich people brought forward income so it was taxed at a lower rate and when there is an announcement of a drop coming they delay income.

 

Those of you who have wealthy bosses should know that beyond a regular payment to pay the bills, business owners have some flexibility as to when they take income and can delay it until the tax circumstances are better. In some cases, they will delay for years so it is realised as capital gains, rather than as income

 

It is not all about people moving to foreign countries

 

They don't even have to move to foreign countries. Lots of them get to stay here as "non-doms" and get all the advantages of living in the UK in terms of infrastructure, policing, defence etc while paying less proportionately towards these things than than your average PAYE worker.

[angelman]

why not go after the corporates like Google and Amazon who avoid tax in the UK? oh yeah! because individuals are easier to imprison....

 

+1

 

Why is it always the individual?

 

Make companies pay tax in the country they make the profit in, stop all this quasi tax evasion they do by loaning money to themselves via shell companies. This would also take into account individuals setting up companies à la Jimmy Carr.

[JPTCount]

I would prefer a tax system where we all pay a flat income tax rate, say 10%, but luxury goods, like a rolls Royce would have a 50% vat, whereas a micra carries the standard 20%.

[buctootim]

+1

 

Why is it always the individual?

 

Make companies pay tax in the country they make the profit in, stop all this quasi tax evasion they do by loaning money to themselves via shell companies. This would also take into account individuals setting up companies à la Jimmy Carr.

 

This - and dramatically increase the progression of council tax bands payment so its related to value. For example a typical bill for a £250,000 house is around £1,500 but for a £2.5m house its only around double that - should be around £15,000 imo and £150,000 for a £25m house.

[angelman]

Tax the super rich like all these PL football players. Then we might see a more honest game.

 

I always find these conversations about taxing the rich interesting, as it always seems to exclude those football players that are earning £100k, £150k, £200k+ a week (without image and other bonuses).

[saintfully]

Shift tax burden to wealth rather than income.

[pap]

Shift tax burden to wealth rather than income.

 

I'm a big fan of land tax. Not really avoidable and it'd probably do a lot for redistribution.

[Whitey Grandad]

Taxation is legalised daylight robbery. Stop spending and wasting and we could all keep more of what we earn.

[buctootim]

Taxation is legalised daylight robbery. Stop spending and wasting and we could all keep more of what we earn.

 

No you wouldnt. Uneducated and uncivilised gangs of thugs would take it from you and burn the rest. hth.

[Saintandy666]

Perfectly legitimate idea to enable us to pay off some debt and reduce interest payments. And also totally in line with general Lib Dem ideology of recent years. And before anyone retorts, coalition policy is not Lib Dem policy necessarily.

[thefunkygibbons]

Shift tax burden to wealth rather than income.

 

 

The problems with this are huge

 

Just one extreme example - I have determined that your 1976 Saints shirt is worth £1m

 

Now pay tax of 20% on it

 

But you don't have the income to do so, so you are forced to sell it

 

Of course that would happen with loads of assets, and in most cases the best way to determine the price is to sell it, and capital gains tax applies then anyway

[Whitey Grandad]

No you wouldnt. Uneducated and uncivilised gangs of thugs would take it from you and burn the rest. hth.

 

But that's what happens now?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just sound bite politics from Cleggy.

 

Trying to tax wealth is a very complex and very complicated thing, as well he knows.

 

Do you tax people's pension pots, if not high earners will just put more into that. If you do you end up catching Doctors, senior police officers and in some cases head teachers in that trap. hardly people we consider the super rich. If it's just aimed at the super rich like Paul Macartney ect, well we could start by taking his winter fuel allowence of him. Poor bloke could put another jumper on if he's getting cold. These super rich will pay millions of pounds to run rings round the chumps at HMRC.

 

To make it "time limited" is crazy as well. I'm no finacial whizz, but I'm sure I could delay payment of this until it went, maybe paying myself less whilst it's in and more when it's out. I'm sure there's some tax accountants licking their lips at the thought of the fees they'll earn.

 

I despair at the rich bashing in this country nowadays. Most of them are hardworking, risk takers who generate money and already pay millions into the coffers. The top 1% of income tax payers account for nearly 25% of income tax take, far more of a % than they did when Healy taxed them at 80%. We seem to band all the "rich" together and then blame them for all the Countrys ills. Yes, some rich people behaved in a terrible way, but just as every man on benefit is not a benefit cheat, every rich person didn't cause the crash. I am seriously going to chuck a shoe at my TV the next time someone's on TV saying "I didn't cause the crash, why should I suffer". Most of the super rich didn't cause the crash and maybe they earn stupid amounts of money, but to lump them all together and believe we can wave a magic wand and somehow get loads of extra tax of them is deluded.

 

It's unworkable and Clegg knows it.

Edited 31 August, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[pap]

Just sound bite politics from Cleggy.

 

Trying to tax wealth is a very complex and very complicated thing, as well he knows.

 

Do you tax people's pension pots, if not high earners will just put more into that. If you do you end up catching Doctors, senior police officers and in some cases head teachers in that trap. hardly people we consider the super rich. If it's just aimed at the super rich like Paul Macartney ect, well we could start by taking his winter fuel allowence of him. Poor bloke could put another jumper on if he's getting cold. These super rich will pay millions of pounds to run rings round the chumps at HMRC.

 

To make it "time limited" is crazy as well. I'm no finacial whizz, but I'm sure I could delay payment of this until it went, maybe paying myself less whilst it's in and more when it's out. I'm sure there's some tax accountants licking their lips at the thought of the fees they'll earn.

 

I despair at the rich bashing in this country nowadays. Most of them are hardworking, risk takers who generate money and already pay millions into the coffers. The top 1% of income tax payers account for nearly 25% of income tax take, far more of a % than they did when Healy taxed them at 80%. We seem to band all the "rich" together and then blame them for all the Countrys ills. Yes, some rich people behaved in a terrible way, but just as every man on benefit is not a benefit cheat, every rich person didn't cause the crash. I am seriously going to chuck a shoe at my TV the next time someone's on TV saying "I didn't cause the crash, why should I suffer". Most of the super rich didn't cause the crash and maybe they earn stupid amounts of money, but to lump them all together and believe we can wave a magic wand and somehow get loads of extra tax of them is deluded.

 

It's unworkable and Clegg knows it.

 

I really like your point about the super-rich, Lord D. Classic straw man. Instead of debating the merits of redistributing some of that vast wealth, it's all about Macca's winter fuel allowance!

 

The only thing that makes this proposal unworkable is political will, and we both know it. Would upset too many of the wrong people.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I really like your point about the super-rich, Lord D. Classic straw man. Instead of debating the merits of redistributing some of that vast wealth, it's all about Macca's winter fuel allowance!

 

The only thing that makes this proposal unworkable is political will, and we both know it. Would upset too many of the wrong people.

 

Its not about upsetting the wrong people its about encouraging the right people who create wealth by using the tax system to incentivise. Your Mugabe thinking has worked so well in Zimbabwe; would you bring your land tax in this year after one of the worst harvests for years and years?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I really like your point about the super-rich, Lord D. Classic straw man. Instead of debating the merits of redistributing some of that vast wealth, it's all about Macca's winter fuel allowance!

 

The only thing that makes this proposal unworkable is political will, and we both know it. Would upset too many of the wrong people.

 

We are redistributing vast wealth already. How much do you want the top 1% to pay, it's already a 25% of income tax. Have you learnt nothing from the last time we tried to tax them until the pips squeaked.Talking about "political will" and upsetting the wrong people, is just rollocks. Anyway how do you define rich.Property, pension pot, wages (which are taxed already), shares, luxery goods owned? Do you really believe it's as easy as Cleggy makes out to collect this "time limited" tax?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I really like your point about the super-rich, Lord D. Classic straw man. Instead of debating the merits of redistributing some of that vast wealth, it's all about Macca's winter fuel allowance!

 

I think you'll find that the winter fuel allowence point was a very small % of my post. So it's hardly "all about" that.

 

As an aside, why should the super rich be entittled to winter fuel allowence?

[Whitey Grandad]

I think you'll find that the winter fuel allowence point was a very small % of my post. So it's hardly "all about" that.

 

As an aside, why should the super rich be entittled to winter fuel allowence?

 

Because it's part of the tax structure, just as much as tax-free allowance, and it would cost far more to remove it selectively from those deemed unworthy.

[Whitey Grandad]

I really like your point about the super-rich, Lord D. Classic straw man. Instead of debating the merits of redistributing some of that vast wealth, it's all about Macca's winter fuel allowance!

 

The only thing that makes this proposal unworkable is political will, and we both know it. Would upset too many of the wrong people.

 

Why call it redistribution? Very little money goes from the poor to the wealthy, it's all one-way.

[aintforever]

Why call it redistribution? Very little money goes from the poor to the wealthy, it's all one-way.

 

Probably because the wealthy get wealthy by taking money from other people.

[Whitey Grandad]

So who would you call when you or a family member need an ambulance after say a serious car accident?

 

Or a heart attack maybe? ;-)

 

I wasn't advocating no taxation, just something more reasonable. 20% is plenty.

[Whitey Grandad]

Probably because the wealthy get wealthy by taking money from other people.

 

Do they steal it, or offer something in return?

[aintforever]

Do they steal it, or offer something in return?

 

Everyone who works offers something in return. Thanks to our society, which needs to be funded by taxes.

 

I think this tax is an excellent idea. A one off Robin Hood style tax will negate the argument that people will leave the country to avoid paying tax.

Edited 31 August, 2012 by aintforever

[pap]

We are redistributing vast wealth already. How much do you want the top 1% to pay, it's already a 25% of income tax. Have you learnt nothing from the last time we tried to tax them until the pips squeaked.Talking about "political will" and upsetting the wrong people, is just rollocks. Anyway how do you define rich.Property, pension pot, wages (which are taxed already), shares, luxery goods owned? Do you really believe it's as easy as Cleggy makes out to collect this "time limited" tax?

 

The top 1% pay 25% income tax? I doubt it, and so do you. Half the problem is that our most well-off citizens don't pay any tax.

 

Are you really asking how we define whether someone is rich? Speaking for myself, I tend to check my bank account to determine such things. Of course, this will be very difficult because most of the super-rich people you're defending will have cached large sums of money into off-shore accounts where it does precisely zero for the British economy, but it's a start.

 

I don't think that time-limited tax would be an easy thing to implement. Little ever is, but that's no reason not to pursue it.

[pap]

Why call it redistribution? Very little money goes from the poor to the wealthy, it's all one-way.

 

That's a load of rubbish, Whitey Grandad. Everyone paying PAYE right now is funding extremely wealthy slum landlords. Everyone paying a mortgage right now is funding extremely wealthy bankers.

 

Sure, the poor might not be handing over 100s of K in each transaction, but there is such a thing called volume. I believe it applies here.

[thefunkygibbons]

The top 1% pay 25% income tax? I doubt it, and so do you. Half the problem is that our most well-off citizens don't pay any tax.

 

Are you really asking how we define whether someone is rich? Speaking for myself, I tend to check my bank account to determine such things. Of course, this will be very difficult because most of the super-rich people you're defending will have cached large sums of money into off-shore accounts where it does precisely zero for the British economy, but it's a start.

 

I don't think that time-limited tax would be an easy thing to implement. Little ever is, but that's no reason not to pursue it.

 

You are entitled to your own opinions

 

But you are not entitled to your own facts

[pap]

You are entitled to your own opinions

 

But you are not entitled to your own facts

 

I really like the way you said what you said. Sounded great.

 

Completely undermined by numerous reports of legal tax evasion schemes. Somehow diminishes the message of an otherwise punchy and excellent post.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The top 1% pay 25% income tax? I doubt it, and so do you.

 

Actually, I do believe it. As does Nick Robinson, although he claims it's 27%

 

5. The Rich Pay More Than You Might Think

 

"The top 1% of earners - just 300,000 people - pay 27% of all income tax. Of course, many people believe that the rich should pay more, but identifying who's "rich" - and getting them to stump up - is fiendishly difficult for our politicians."

 

That's what he said

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15843746

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html

[pap]

Actually, I do believe it. As does Nick Robinson, although he claims it's 27%

 

5. The Rich Pay More Than You Might Think

 

"The top 1% of earners - just 300,000 people - pay 27% of all income tax. Of course, many people believe that the rich should pay more, but identifying who's "rich" - and getting them to stump up - is fiendishly difficult for our politicians."

 

That's what he said

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15843746

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html

 

Nice, but that's just income tax, Lord D.

 

According to this paper, forecasted revenue for 2010-2011 was £588.6Bn. Income tax accounts for £157.6Bn of that. The income tax stat you're pumping (rich pay 27% of all income tax) up represents 7% of collected revenue.

[CB Saint]

Nice, but that's just income tax, Lord D.

 

According to this paper, forecasted revenue for 2010-2011 was £588.6Bn. Income tax accounts for £157.6Bn of that. The income tax stat you're pumping (rich pay 27% of all income tax) up represents 7% of collected revenue.

 

So 1% of the population pays 7% of all tax revenues including Income tax, VAT and Corporation tax - still feels like the country is doing alright out of them.

[buctootim]

So 1% of the population pays 7% of all tax revenues including Income tax, VAT and Corporation tax - still feels like the country is doing alright out of them.

 

Put another way, the top 1% who control 21% of the nations wealth pay only 7% of the tax.

[pap]

So 1% of the population pays 7% of all tax revenues including Income tax, VAT and Corporation tax - still feels like the country is doing alright out of them.

 

It's a big chunk of change, I'll not deny it.

 

Still, those people are not the top 1% of earners. They are the top 1% of earners with transparent tax arrangements. My hat is off to them.

 

What about the rest?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Nice, but that's just income tax, Lord D.

 

.

 

As I wrote "How much do you want the top 1% to pay, it's already at 25% of income tax." I dont quite understand your point.

 

According to the OECD rich Britons (they define rich as top 10%) pay about 39% of total taxes, contrast this with 28% in France, 31% in Germany, and In America the home of the "bad guys" it is 45%. Strange isn't it that in France the rich pay 28% but in the much-maligned USA, where greed is supposedly king, they pay 45%. Perhaps when Hollande's new super tax kicks in, we'll be able to see a massive increase in the richest in France's contribution to society. Personally, I doubt it, because as Healy found out when he raised the rate to 83% it's self defeating.

 

If squeezing the pips of the richest in society was the answer, then we wouldn't have needed to go cap in hand to the IMF in the 70's and Labour wouldn't have spent 18 years trying to regain it's economic credibility.

Edited 31 August, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[pap]

Your definition of top 1% is those that are actually declaring income of more than 300K, Lord D.

 

The super-rich represent a much larger group than them. I don't think that we need to take any more from those in your 1%. We need to suss out how to get revenue from the true set of the super-rich.

 

And let's not pretend that no solutions are being offered up here. Land tax comes up again and again as an easy way to identify those that could shoulder more of the burden.

[Whitey Grandad]

That's a load of rubbish, Whitey Grandad. Everyone paying PAYE right now is funding extremely wealthy slum landlords. Everyone paying a mortgage right now is funding extremely wealthy bankers.

 

Sure, the poor might not be handing over 100s of K in each transaction, but there is such a thing called volume. I believe it applies here.

 

Slum landlords? Please explain. If you're paying a mortgage it's usually to buy a property.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Your definition of top 1% is those that are actually declaring income of more than 300K, Lord D.

 

The super-rich represent a much larger group than them. I don't think that we need to take any more from those in your 1%. We need to suss out how to get revenue from the true set of the super-rich.

 

And let's not pretend that no solutions are being offered up here. Land tax comes up again and again as an easy way to identify those that could shoulder more of the burden.

 

Perhaps I'm a bit simple, but I dont get the 300k figure and certainly never used it.Apoligies if it's in a link, but my understanding of the top 1% of income tax payers is baiscally the top 1% of everyone who pays income tax.Surely it's a number of people, not a £ and p figure.

 

We already have VAT on luxury goods, and various other ways of sqeezing them too complicated to list on here. They pay for NHS, which I doubt they use. Dont you think that if there was a way of getting more out of the rich people who aren't in the 1%, a Government would have found it by now. The first thing you need to do is define what is rich . Secondly you need to then find assests that you can tax, without the unintended consequences of hammering others. Then you have to collect it, whilst having expensive tax advisors running rings around you.

[Whitey Grandad]

Put another way, the top 1% who control 21% of the nations wealth pay only 7% of the tax.

 

You're obsessed by this wealth thing. You see something of value and want it for yourself. Somebody else has something and you don't and you want to steal it from them.

There is nothing wrong with wealth.

[buctootim]

You're obsessed by this wealth thing. You see something of value and want it for yourself. Somebody else has something and you don't and you want to steal it from them.

There is nothing wrong with wealth.

 

Nice wail. As to the susbstance, do you agree that taxation rates should reflect income levels - or should they be lower for the top 1%?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Nice wail. As to the susbstance, do you agree that taxation rates should reflect income levels - or should they be lower for the top 1%?

 

They are already higher for the top 1%. They pay 45%.

[buctootim]

This is the whole point though. Its not about income taxation rates - I wouldnt increase them, 40% is about right to me. Its about the whole raft of tax avoidance measures available which enable the top 1% to avoid paying the large majority of income tax otherwise due. If the tax code were simplified to cut out many of the legal dodges, in return for lower income tax rates I'd be happy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is the whole point though. Its not about income taxation rates - I wouldnt increase them, 40% is about right to me. Its about the whole raft of tax avoidance measures available which enable the top 1% to avoid paying the large majority of income tax otherwise due. If the tax code were simplified to cut out many of the legal dodges, in return for lower income tax rates I'd be happy.

 

Obviously that's the problem.

 

The so called charity tax was put in place to try and stop aviodence, but there was an unintended consequence in that charity donations would be hit. Same with Jimmy Carr's scheme, that tax break was designed to help the film industry. There are some clever barstewards out there and as weve seen with the Skates, the HMRC are'nt a patch on them. I think we'd all love to be able to knock on these people's doors and demand they cough up, but its not that simple.

 

It's been the same all through history. There was the window tax in the 18th and 19th century, as rich people's houses had more windows. What happened, they bricked them up. A simplistic example, but you get the jist.

[pap]

Slum landlords? Please explain. If you're paying a mortgage it's usually to buy a property.

 

Housing Benefit comes out of the governments coffers. The taxpayer fills those, therefore the taxpayer pays for Housing Benefit, some of which goes to slum landlords.

 

In many cases, the only risk these people have taken is "yeah, you can have the house back if I can't afford the property".

[Whitey Grandad]

Housing Benefit comes out of the governments coffers. The taxpayer fills those, therefore the taxpayer pays for Housing Benefit, some of which goes to slum landlords.

 

In many cases, the only risk these people have taken is "yeah, you can have the house back if I can't afford the property".

 

That's a convoluted argument. PAYE is only a fraction of tax revenue and you have hypothecated part of it. This is an example of how we can reduce spending instead of stealing perceived wealth.