"Wealth taxes don't work"

[capitalsaint]

Tax is best levied on a mix of income, spending and wealth.

Our mix, in my very well thought out opinion(!!) is too much towards income , especially at the lower end of income, and not enough on wealth. All those wealth creators who are SO opposed to tax and SO in favour of the jobs they create, can easily avoid tax by reinvesting their profits in creating new jobs.

Wealth tax percentage. Don't know. Very high for the rapacious bastards in the banks, and the aristocrats whose forbears stole the land .

Lower elsewhere.

rich people should pay a higher percentage than poorer people because that will make for a better world. Level taxes for all will lead, and are leading to increasingly unequal societies, and ALL the evidence is that the more unequal the society, the worse they work.

 

The jealousy bit is a load of nonsense...its about making it all work.

 

They already do

[teamsaint]

They already do

 

Should. In theory and in practice.

And they often don't. Have you heard of wholesale tax avoidance and evasion?

 

Actually, now I think about it, the current economic model, based on the greed of those at the top, arms and oil and banking interests(all of whom want low taxes for the rich), is going rather well, isn't it. All we need to do is fix the collapsing currency, solve unemployment, deal with the deficits,keep the lid on inflation caused by giving money to the banks(QE) and then we can move on to helping the developing world. Doddle. I bet the lib dems can help.

If it ain't broke.......!!

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

They already do

 

Does your in depth analysis include the amount of indirect taxation paid relative to wages? Does it take into account complex tax planning schemes and the use of tax havens?

 

I'd bet that super-rich pay a lower % of tax than those who fall into the upper rate bracket but only just.

[Clapham Saint]

Out of curiosity, how do posters on here define "Super Rich"?

 

Do you have to have income of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

[tony13579]

I agree that the UK is taxed as much as it can afford. We have to reduce our spending without harming the things that are genuinely essential.

Our hospitals elderly care ,roads, infustructure, education, ports, factories are essential. So is our international reputation and banking. any thing that produces exports.

 

What is not essential is huge spending in road narrowing, oasis academies, police HQs. More service industry jobs. All that grand paving round the guildhall.

 

Any public scheme like an art gallery must be costed on its total cost. Not the bit of money from donations, a bit from the council, a bit from Europe and a bit from the lottery. Because in the end ALL the money comes from us and out of our economy!

We cannot afford to save every crumbling stately home, gothic public loo, every writers house. We cannot fund 200 potential tennis champions. What do they add to the economy?

 

You have to decide, do you want to fund the art gallery, the tennis hopefully or do you want your gran to have a dignified old age?

 

You also have to decide whether to have a new car every 2 years and work till you are 67 or keep your car a few more years and retire at 60.

 

I worry about my pension not being enough. If I am lucky it might be between £11&15,000 depending on when I retire. That is a lot more than most people will get. Loads of people will just get state pension, when they reach 67...... £107 per week. £428 a month

That will be squeezed. Fuel is going up to cover grand eco schemes. Services are reducing. How are you supposed to buy glasses, hearing aids, dental charges, repair your boiler, or get your feet or hair done. Hospital services are being rationalised. Southampton kidney patients go to Portsmouth for dialysis. Heart services are going to fewer centres. Travel costs are high. We spend £60 a month going to The Brompton hospital.

 

Parking charges are just another tax. What I spend on parking I can't spend else where. I can't spend it keeping the economy afloat or save it for my pension. If its for business it goes on the retail price of my product. It makes my export goods less competitive. Councils see it as free money. they fritter it on more paving and contesting our roads.

 

We all have a lack of savings, but what is the point of saving to get a measly 3% interest! The trouble is we will have loads of poor pensioners. If pensioners have no cash reserves they will need grants when their boiler brakes. They will qualify for means tested benefits.

 

Employee share saves. I do an employe share save. But it is limited to £250 per month. If the government let me save more I could have a better safety net in retirement. There would be less chance of me needing state help in the future..

 

ISA's great idea but the banks are keeping the profits and making a mockery of the scheme. The £3000 per year limit and low interest rates make these schemes useless. There is no incentive to save..

 

Setting up a business is hard, too hard. We need cheap business properties, simple schemes to help you comply with legislation. Easy schemes to help you employ people. Cheap reliable postage, phones, transport, export channels, fast imports. ( not held for 21 days by customs and parcel force!)

 

Stamp duty, stamp duty on houses over £250,000 is too much. We spent £10k on stamp duty, we couldn't do that too often! It restricts free movement of business starters. It's another £10k that is not in our pension pot.

 

Planning permission, social housing, section 105 agreements, school buildings and sports facilities huge road schemes, non car transport etc. is driving up new home costs.. Typically a new home is taxed £30k providing contributions to all these. £5000 of all new homes is spent is spent on cycle paths, bus shelters, etc, etc. when I say spent, it is collected, and stashed by councils. Some is spent. Our parish has a huge pot looking for ways to spend it. All those huge offset roundabouts, traffic lights, pinch points, table junctions add costs to new homes, and cause congestion.

 

It all costs money, not much of that money will help our economy.

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee!

[Wes Tender]

Out of curiosity, how do posters on here define "Super Rich"?

 

Do you have to have income of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

 

I've also asked the "squeeze them until the pips squeak" brigade for the percentage figure that they reckon the wealthy should pay. I'm still wating for a response. I suspect that the answer will be such and such a level for incomes up to x and this level for incomes up to y and so on. And then of course, there will be no incentive for anybody to earn more than the next level above them, as most of it will go into the pockets of the Taxman and naturally the more compicated the system is, the more costly it will be to administer in terms of bureacracy and also more open to abuse.

 

But for the high tax lobby, it will be as easy to pluck percentage tax rates out of the air as it will be to put a figure on what constitutes serious wealth in their opinion. But naturally they will have absolutely no idea at all about the resultant income to the exchequer against the cost of administration, or what the level will be that is considered fair and equitable by those who will be affected by it.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Out of curiosity, how do posters on here define "Super Rich"?

 

Do you have to have income of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

 

Obviously there are shades of grey (ooh lala) but i'd suggest income in the hundreds of thousands and assets of £2-3m plus. The top 1% if you like.

[Wes Tender]

Obviously there are shades of grey (ooh lala) but i'd suggest income in the hundreds of thousands and assets of £2-3m plus. The top 1% if you like.

 

The assets of £2/3 million aren't going to be difficult to achieve in London, are they?

 

So come on, accept the challenge I made and tell us what rate of tax you deem to be appropriate for those on or above that level of wealth.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I've also asked the "squeeze them until the pips squeak" brigade for the percentage figure that they reckon the wealthy should pay. I'm still wating for a response. I suspect that the answer will be such and such a level for incomes up to x and this level for incomes up to y and so on. And then of course, there will be no incentive for anybody to earn more than the next level above them, as most of it will go into the pockets of the Taxman and naturally the more compicated the system is, the more costly it will be to administer in terms of bureacracy and also more open to abuse.

 

But for the high tax lobby, it will be as easy to pluck percentage tax rates out of the air as it will be to put a figure on what constitutes serious wealth in their opinion. But naturally they will have absolutely no idea at all about the resultant income to the exchequer against the cost of administration, or what the level will be that is considered fair and equitable by those who will be affected by it.

 

Well as you seem to have all the answers what do you think is an acceptable % of income to be paid in tax by the super-rich?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The assets of £2/3 million aren't going to be difficult to achieve in London, are they?

 

So come on, accept the challenge I made and tell us what rate of tax you deem to be appropriate for those on or above that level of wealth.

 

Net assets of £3m and annual income of £300k plus not difficult to achieve? Well a tiny tiny minority have such wealth, you act like this is common place.

 

A top rate of 40% is fair but I doubt many of those in and above the bracket I put forward pay anything close to 40% - hence perhaps the desire to look at other methods.

[Wes Tender]

Well as you seem to have all the answers what do you think is an acceptable % of income to be paid in tax by the super-rich?

 

Like you, I believe 40% to be fair, as they are also paying taxes on many other things too, like VAT of 20% The trouble is, the last government hadn't learned the lessons and decided that 50% was fairer. It wouldn't surprise me if the tax take gets progressively less the higher the rate.

Net assets of £3m and annual income of £300k plus not difficult to achieve? Well a tiny tiny minority have such wealth, you act like this is common place.

 

 

I was talking about London and my post stated £2/3 million as a figure for the assets, which will mainly be the property owned. You have decided somehow that I was talking about £3 million and then you have also decided to put an income level on too, which I had not mentioned. Any more words that you wish to put into my mouth?

 

But as the wealth tax proposal made is based on assets as well as income, it is still a fair point that it will adversely affect people in London, Sandbanks and the other high-price property market areas. But it doesn't take much research to find that property prices in central London would easily account for £2/3 million values, which would be average for just a terraced property.

 

http://www.home.co.uk/guides/asking_prices_report.htm?county=londonc&lastyear=1

[OldNick]

Property tax is a creeping tax. 20 years ago 200000 would have been seen as a wealthy persons property.Now that is quite a common value and many people on here will certainly own property in that price range. The government may up the levy as the time goes on but like stamp duty more people are brought into the net as time goes on.

 

Any tax of envy is a dangerous game to play.

 

Cut out the offshore tax loopholes by all means but do not penalise people who have staked the lot on hard work and risk.

 

I believe if you started again and gave everybody 1000 at the end of the year there would be many with nothing and some who would be well off. Some are lazy ,some do not wish to take risks,others are poor at budgeting others are able to seize opportunity,that is life but to penalise is wrong.

The better paid do pay higher tax and so contribute more of their income percentage wise,stop looking up in envy but strive to join them. I would love to be a billionaire but I'm not going to be as I am not smart enough,or not been lucky I don't get all bitter and twisted about it though.

[cambsaint]

The main problem with our tax system is its complexity and the fact that it isn't fair.

Why with computers are we still living in the pen and table era of having fixed tax bands?

All the complex arrangements are a gift to the wealthy who can afford clever accountants and arrange their tax affairs.

Th poor bloody infantry on PAYE are ripped off by the self-employed and wealthy (and I was self-employed, and couldn't believe how much a clever accountant could save you!)

If Labour or the Liberals had the guts they'd tear up the system and start again, and really screw those trying to use artificial arrangements or offshore accounts.

Everyboody should pay a fair rate of tax on income, and remember the burden of VAT and fuel duties falls disproportionately on the poor.

[SaintBobby]

I'm a low tax, low spend, applaud the wealth creators sort of chap.

 

Here's my 2p worth (although I can probably afford more).

 

1. Most economists agree that squeezing 40% out of the economy is the absolute maximum that can be borne without reducing the overall size of the economy (people stop working at certain tax rates or emigrate or retire earlier etc). There are good arguments for government spending being much below 40% (the fastest growing economies tend to have a public sector of about 25% of GDP)

2. Most tax avoidance is widely misunderstood and is often just a matter of time-lags. For example, the reason Warren Buffet pays less tax (as % of his income) then his cleaner is that he has wrapped up a collosal proportion of his income into unrealised shares on his balance sheet. When he cashes these in, he will face an enormous capital gains tax bill. People think there are rules in the tax code saying "if you're rich and don't want to pay, that's fine". This is a massive oversimplification.

3. The government often actively encourages tax avoidance. One reason taxes are high on tobacco and low on fruit is to encourage you to become a tax avoider by cutting back on cigarettes and eating more apples.

4. A government in a relatively affluent society should be able to achieve its objectives by spending only about 25% of national income. If this isn't enough to relieve poverty, defend the realm etc, then the government is doing something very badly wrong with the money. UK expenditure is presently about 46% of GDP (government spending having roughly doubled under the last Labour government to a bewildering lack of effect)

5. The tax rules in the UK are absurdly complex, stretching to something like 15,000 pages. This is the longest tax code of any country on Earth. The rules should be laid out in no more than 15 pages and should adopt the principles of being (a) low (b) proportionate © easy to understand.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I was talking about London and my post stated £2/3 million as a figure for the assets, which will mainly be the property owned. You have decided somehow that I was talking about £3 million and then you have also decided to put an income level on too, which I had not mentioned. Any more words that you wish to put into my mouth?

 

 

I guess that was because when I wrote this:

 

Obviously there are shades of grey (ooh lala) but i'd suggest income in the hundreds of thousands and assets of £2-3m plus. The top 1% if you like.

 

You replied directly:

 

The assets of £2/3 million aren't going to be difficult to achieve in London, are they?

 

Pot and kettle?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

. UK expenditure is presently about 46% of GDP (government spending having roughly doubled under the last Labour government to a bewildering lack of effect)

 

Even Maggie could getting any lower than the high 30s% and that was with plenty of sell-offs and healthy north sea oil. Sounds like distorted statistics your quoting there.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The better paid do pay higher tax and so contribute more of their income percentage wise,stop looking up in envy but strive to join them. I would love to be a billionaire but I'm not going to be as I am not smart enough,or not been lucky I don't get all bitter and twisted about it though.

 

I'd wager my entire tax bill that a UK billionaire pays a lower percentage of tax on their income that me (let alone Phillip Green!). Why are you so quick to label it as envy? It's got fucc all to do with envy it just about everyone pulling together in the same direction to make society as a whole better.

Edited 30 September, 2012 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[Jonnyboy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/26/atos-disability-benefits-colin-traynor-epilepsy-_n_1917042.html

 

the disabled don't donate to tory election funds, but these do:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

[saint1977]

I couldn't really be called a socialist as I do think a certain level of inequality is inevitable and those who put the extra in should be rewarded. However, this shouldn't be an automatic ideology - which is where neoconservative thinking went badly wrong - if people no longer merit those vast rewards (banks) or if the level of reward become totally disproportionate to reality, hence why you've got the top 1% hoarding trillions. I admire entrepreneurs like the guys who founded Innocent. OK, they sold to Coca Cola (I think) but they also give quite a bit back to society and don't seem to want to put out an outdated ideological drumbeat out via the usual media channels.

 

There IS such a thing as society and there needs to be shared responsibility and the genuine vulnerable need to be protected. This is why the Tory Party is so split at the present - the T

[Wes Tender]

I guess that was because when I wrote this:

 

You replied directly:

 

Pot and kettle?

 

I chose to point out that many people with property in London (or Sandbanks and other high property price areas) would find themselves falling into your bracket classifying them as being wealthy and taxed accordingly at a higher rate.

 

But you define wealthy people as those earning several hundred thousand and with assets of £2/3 million.

 

So does somebody with assets (which is in the main going to be property) over £2-3 million (because they live in central London) but income below the hundreds of thousands still have to pay the higher rate which you set at 40%?

 

Or do you propose that they are deemed to be wealthy only if they satisfy both criteria?

 

You see, it is looking as if it will be difficult and therefore costly to administer, the tax-caning of this 1% of the population, in order to obtain tax at a rate 5% lower than it is currently and 10% less than it was under Labour.

[Clapham Saint]

Is it really fair to tax somebody (high earner or otherwise) 50% (or 45 or 40) of their income, as they earn it, and then tax them again because they have had the audacity to own the remaining 50%?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Is it really fair that one person should have 10+ times as much money as another person simply because they were born with intelligence, had parents who could afford to give them a better education, or simply inherited a **** load of money?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Right wingers assume that the rich have earned their money, and many of them do work hard, but so do a lot of people further down the chain who have no hope of rising to the top. Actually the most important factor in whether you become a high earner is luck, whether that be who you are born to, the characteristics you are born with or simply stumbling across a great business venture.

 

Obviously the problem is that the tax system has to be practical and if rich people are going to take their money overseas then we have to be careful about raising taxes to keep them here, and there also needs to be an incentive to innovate and work hard.

 

But morally there is no justification for the income inequality we are seeing in the country and which is getting worse.

[Whitey Grandad]

Is it really fair that one person should have 10+ times as much money as another person simply because they were born with intelligence, had parents who could afford to give them a better education, or simply inherited a **** load of money?

 

Of course it is. Life's not fair. Deal with it and move on.

[Whitey Grandad]

Right wingers assume that the rich have earned their money, and many of them do work hard, but so do a lot of people further down the chain who have no hope of rising to the top. Actually the most important factor in whether you become a high earner is luck, whether that be who you are born to, the characteristics you are born with or simply stumbling across a great business venture.

 

Freddie Laker said that people used to accuse him of being lucky. He replied that everybody has opportunities in life but that very few grasp those opportunities and take the risks involved.

[Wes Tender]

But morally there is no justification for the income inequality we are seeing in the country and which is getting worse.

 

And morally too, it is not fair that people pay their taxes, part of which goes towards the benefits received by feckless people who although capable of work, will not work, or who receive benefits fraudulently and work at the same time.

 

As WG points out, life's not fair.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Freddie Laker said that people used to accuse him of being lucky. He replied that everybody has opportunities in life but that very few grasp those opportunities and take the risks involved.

 

Freddie Laker, who was lucky enough to be born in one of the richest countries in the world, who was lucky enough to be born with the intelligence to get into a top grammar school, and who was lucky enough to have a wealthy friend to lend him £38,000 to start his first business.

 

The rich always like to attribute their success to their own genius but actually it has as much to do with circumstantial factors

[Whitey Grandad]

Freddie Laker, who was lucky enough to be born in one of the richest countries in the world, who was lucky enough to be born with the intelligence to get into a top grammar school, and who was lucky enough to have a wealthy friend to lend him £38,000 to start his first business.

 

The rich always like to attribute their success to their own genius but actually it has as much to do with circumstantial factors

 

Millions of others were also born in the same rich country. What makes you think that intelligence is all down to luck? Some youngsters stay in and do their home work, others like to hang out behind the shed smoking. Some go to the library and borrow books, others sit around chatting. Life is what you make it.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

And morally too, it is not fair that people pay their taxes, part of which goes towards the benefits received by feckless people who although capable of work, will not work, or who receive benefits fraudulently and work at the same time.

 

As WG points out, life's not fair.

 

Can you really blame people for choosing to take benefits in preference to doing some utterly tedious job for very little money for the rest of their lives? Or should they work harder and then one day they can become a millionaire?

 

I know that life isn't fair but shouldn't we strive for a world which is at least more fair? I've said that there are practical reasons to not raise taxes on the rich to too high a level, but there is no moral basis for a relatively small number of lucky people to to hold so much money when people further down the chain are struggling.

 

Furthermore, capitalism doesn't work if the rich get too rich as people don't have the money to buy the goods and services their companies offer.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Millions of others were also born in the same rich country. What makes you think that intelligence is all down to luck? Some youngsters stay in and do their home work, others like to hang out behind the shed smoking. Some go to the library and borrow books, others sit around chatting. Life is what you make it.

 

So someone with a learning disability just needs to work harder at school?

 

Ultimately, no matter how hard everyone works, there is only going to be so many people who can make it to the top. Why should those who do make it have such vast amounts of wealth when others are struggling to put food on the table?

 

PS you ignored the point about him having a wealthy friend to give him his start in business. Its all very well saying people don't take risks but its a lot less of a risk when you've got £38,000 in your pocket.

Edited 1 October, 2012 by Ex Lion Tamer

[buctootim]

The interesting thing in threads like this is how often middle class or comfortably off posters defend the convoluted tax shielding schemes of the mega wealthy. Wes and Whitey its you guys who are paying more because the Philip Greens and Hans Rausing's of this world are barely paying at all.

 

Personally I think the tax rate shouldnt be any higher than 40% and thats immoral to take more than half someones earnings in tax. Its also immoral that someone worth £8billion pays £37,000 in income tax.

[OldNick]

So someone with a learning disability just needs to work harder at school?

 

Ultimately, no matter how hard everyone works, there is only going to be so many people who can make it to the top. Why should those who do make it have such vast amounts of wealth when others are struggling to put food on the table?

 

PS you ignored the point about him having a wealthy friend to give him his start in business. Its all very well saying people don't take risks but its a lot less of a risk when you've got £38,000 in your pocket.

please dont use the im not academic to become a success, there are many people who are not academic who are very successful. Add making excuses for taking the benefits system for a ride because the jobs are boring is very sad and a reason why so many people are struggling. The economy can take lots more small businesses who work hard and go out and have a go. in the long term we need as many of the people at the bottom setting up and becoming a success.

I do agree there are many who do not have a hope and they are the ones we work hard for to pay contributions to help, I have no time for the malingerers and soakers of the system,and dislike the waste of resources on these people.

The majority of people want fairness in society but taking extra off people who already have paid a fair amount in is wrong. get the Government to cut back on waste and people report the ones on benefit fraud and we would all be better off.

Of course there is the code of honour that wont let you report the cheats because it is seen as grassing up, it's yet another way of suppressing the poor. the only people who want the benefit cheats not get reported is the cheats themselves.

[OldNick]

The interesting thing in threads like this is how often middle class or comfortably off posters defend the convoluted tax shielding schemes of the mega wealthy. Wes and Whitey its you guys who are paying more because the Philip Greens and Hans Rausing's of this world are barely paying at all.

 

Personally I think the tax rate shouldnt be any higher than 40% and thats immoral to take more than half someones earnings in tax. Its also immoral that someone worth £8billion pays £37,000 in income tax.

i agree 100% but those people are not the ones who will be effected by the changes, it will be the ones who have tried to make theior own way.

I would probably vote for a party who would stamp those people out. I think you will find that Obama has started doing so in the US and it is about time it happened here. Why we have dependecy's like the IOM and Channel Islands and they are able to avoid VAT and have tax schemes is beyond me.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

please dont use the im not academic to become a success, there are many people who are not academic who are very successful. Add making excuses for taking the benefits system for a ride because the jobs are boring is very sad and a reason why so many people are struggling. The economy can take lots more small businesses who work hard and go out and have a go. in the long term we need as many of the people at the bottom setting up and becoming a success.

I do agree there are many who do not have a hope and they are the ones we work hard for to pay contributions to help, I have no time for the malingerers and soakers of the system,and dislike the waste of resources on these people.

The majority of people want fairness in society but taking extra off people who already have paid a fair amount in is wrong. get the Government to cut back on waste and people report the ones on benefit fraud and we would all be better off.

Of course there is the code of honour that wont let you report the cheats because it is seen as grassing up, it's yet another way of suppressing the poor. the only people who want the benefit cheats not get reported is the cheats themselves.

 

My point was about innate intelligence, it was Whitey who started talking about working hard at school. Of course you can do badly at school but because you are intelligent (even if only moderately) still be able to become a success.

 

Furthermore, going to a good school clearly gives you an advantage, you only have to look at the proportions of people in the country's top jobs who went to public school to see that. Obviously some people can buck the trend but the odds are against them.

 

I don't like people cheating the benefit system but benefit fraud is roughly £1 billion a year while 2000 Britons in the offshore enclave of Monaco alone are costing the UK economy £1 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Yet everyone focuses on the 'scroungers', I guess because they are more visible in daily life.

 

You make the statement that we shouldn't take extra off the rich because they have already paid a fair amount, but that is what I am disputing. Why is it fair that they have that amount of money? I don't believe they work 10 times as hard as a school teacher or are 10 times as talented.

Edited 1 October, 2012 by Ex Lion Tamer

[OldNick]

My point was about innate intelligence, it was Whitey who started talking about working hard at school. Of course you can do badly at school but because you are intelligent (even if only moderately) still be able to become a success.

 

Furthermore, going to a good school clearly gives you an advantage, you only have to look at the proportions of people in the country's top jobs who went to public school to see that. Obviously some people can buck the trend but the odds are against them.

 

I don't like people cheating the benefit system but benefit fraud is roughly £1 billion a year while 2000 Britons in the offshore enclave of Monaco alone are costing the UK economy £1 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Yet everyone focuses on the 'scroungers', I guess because they are more visible in daily life.

 

You make the statement that we shouldn't take extra off the rich because they have already paid a fair amount, but that is what I am disputing. Why is it fair that they have that amount of money? I don't believe they work 10 times as hard as a school teacher or are 10 times as talented.

I think we are all in agreement regarding the super wealthy who pay nothing, but until it becomes legislation that they cannot do the offshore stuff they will get away with it. There is NO excuse for them, they are scum like the benefit cheats.

Some teachers work hard but i dont see them as hardworkers as much as many of the people who I see in business.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I chose to point out that many people with property in London (or Sandbanks and other high property price areas) would find themselves falling into your bracket classifying them as being wealthy and taxed accordingly at a higher rate.

 

But you define wealthy people as those earning several hundred thousand and with assets of £2/3 million.

 

So does somebody with assets (which is in the main going to be property) over £2-3 million (because they live in central London) but income below the hundreds of thousands still have to pay the higher rate which you set at 40%?

 

Or do you propose that they are deemed to be wealthy only if they satisfy both criteria?

 

You see, it is looking as if it will be difficult and therefore costly to administer, the tax-caning of this 1% of the population, in order to obtain tax at a rate 5% lower than it is currently and 10% less than it was under Labour.

 

FFS "£2-3m" = in the region of £2m to £3m, not two thirds of a million. I didn't define "wealthy people" I defined the "super-rich" as I see it. I defined them as people who with annual income of several hundred thousand and net assets of over £2m. Stop putting words in other people's mouths AGAIN.

[Wes Tender]

FFS "£2-3m" = in the region of £2m to £3m, not two thirds of a million. I didn't define "wealthy people" I defined the "super-rich" as I see it. I defined them as people who with annual income of several hundred thousand and net assets of over £2m. Stop putting words in other people's mouths AGAIN.

 

I realise that you were talking £2m to £3m, which was why I was careful afterwards to put in a - instead of the /.

 

And if you care to look at the link I posted regarding property prices in central London, then they illustrate my point that very many of the properties are above the £2m - £3m bracket. That also applies to several other high property price areas of England.

 

Where did I put words into your mouth again?

 

I asked perfectly reasonable questions asking you to explain in more detail the criteria that you used to define these "super wealthy" people, and whether they had to satisfy only one, or both of your benchmarks, but you have not answered them.

 

But anyway, you consider that the top rate of tax should be 40%, yes? which is lower than it is currently. Let's be clear about this; are you saying that 40% is the most anybody should pay, or that those "super rich" people who satisfy your critiria that defines them as such, should pay a higher percentage? If so, what would that rate be?

 

If however you do mean that the top rate should be 40% and that is what the "super rich" should pay, then it rather infers logically that anybody below your threshold should pay a lower percentage, yes?

[Frank's cousin]

Uhm...Tax, everyones favouraite subject

 

Part of teh problem is transparency - we have so many 'taxes' as a result of various Governments trying to hoodwink us into believeing they are reducing income tax... and letting us spend more which is then taxed - in other words we have choice... which is fair enough, but trying to figure out exactly how much we are taxed based, income, council, NI, VAT, pension taxes, savings taxes, duties, Stamp etc as a percentage of you income, and then trying to figure out which political/economic system works out best for us all is not something I would like to get my head around.

 

I think those suggesting the system is way to complex have hit the perverbial nail. We need simplicity - get rid of NI for a start and add it to the TAX system - it all goes in the same pot anyway - VAT was supposed to be for luxury items, diamonds, gold, etc... now on everything virtually and at 20%...

 

I would like to see a simplified system - the onus should be on the parties to provide a simple transparent 'total' of estimated revenue, and spend, with details on how the revenue is collected and from a simple number of sources.

 

Ultimately, all depends on what we want from our society - one in which its dog eat dog, or where we look out for the week and vunerable and ensure services are efficient, high quality and available to all equally. Its not as simple as suggesting its a left v right philosophy either - those old fashioned ideals were born in differnt times and are frankly outdated - We live in a Global economy, in which we must play our part, yet we need to recoignise that without a closer eye on those willing to exploit the rest of us, we wont have a society worth living in.

 

We need a more progressive and simpler tax systen that is fit for purpose in teh modern economy - I dont know what that is and what bands should be applied, but the current one is fecked and ridiculous.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

If you knew all along that I was referring to two to three million why did you reply to me "The assets of £2/3 million aren't going to be difficult to achieve in London, are they?"

 

I think the 40% figure is a suitable level for top rate tax. The fact is that many people who should pay this level don't due to complex, expensive and devious tax planning - see Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr and Phillip Green. The current thresholds at which different tax rates come in could be stetched out a bit to help the squeezed middle and reduce the benefits trap.

Edited 1 October, 2012 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[Whitey Grandad]

So someone with a learning disability just needs to work harder at school?

 

Ultimately, no matter how hard everyone works, there is only going to be so many people who can make it to the top. Why should those who do make it have such vast amounts of wealth when others are struggling to put food on the table?

 

PS you ignored the point about him having a wealthy friend to give him his start in business. Its all very well saying people don't take risks but its a lot less of a risk when you've got £38,000 in your pocket.

 

There weren't learning disabilities when I was young. My grandad used to say 'put in the hard work when you're young so that you won't have to when you're older'. Life's not fair, the poor are with you always. If you don't reward hard work, thrift and enterprise then nobody will have anything.

 

I didn't exactly ignore the part about where he got his starting capital from, I had to rush off to my nurse again and it was not strictly relevant to the point I was making. He also used £4500 of his own money and I'm sure the rest was lent at interest, but Freddie is not my example of an ideal entrepreneur, I was merely saying that if you think that success is all down to luck then you are completely mistaken. If it were then nobody would ever need to take any risks, go out on a limb, put in twice as many hours as somebody else, they could just sit around and wait for providence. As a society we need to reward enterprise else we shall not have the associated employment or tax revenues.

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't like people cheating the benefit system but benefit fraud is roughly £1 billion a year while 2000 Britons in the offshore enclave of Monaco alone are costing the UK economy £1 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Yet everyone focuses on the 'scroungers', I guess because they are more visible in daily life./QUOTE]

These are different monies. Benefit fraud costs actual money which must be paid out. The 'lost revenue' in Monaco is theoretical. These people wouldn't pay tax anyway, they would just go and live somewhere else.

[SaintBobby]

Even Maggie could getting any lower than the high 30s% and that was with plenty of sell-offs and healthy north sea oil. Sounds like distorted statistics your quoting there.

 

The stats are accurate. 40% of GDP today is vastly more money than 40% in 1980.

 

Amazingly, as the country gets richer and richer over the decades, the welfare state seems to need more and more money. Logically, the opposite should be true.

[buctootim]

2. Most tax avoidance is widely misunderstood and is often just a matter of time-lags. For example, the reason Warren Buffet pays less tax (as % of his income) then his cleaner is that he has wrapped up a collosal proportion of his income into unrealised shares on his balance sheet. When he cashes these in, he will face an enormous capital gains tax bill. People think there are rules in the tax code saying "if you're rich and don't want to pay, that's fine". This is a massive oversimplification.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-secretary-talk-taxes-221442297--abc-news.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14533987

 

Warren Buffett has called for Congress to make him and his "mega-rich friends" pay more income tax. In a piece in the New York Times newspaper, the billionaire investor and philanthropist said the rich should do more to help plug the deficit. He called for a tax rise for those earning more than $1m (£600,000), and a higher rate for those on over $10m. In a rebuttal of arguments made by Republicans, he said tax rises would not hurt investment or jobs in the US.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The stats are accurate. 40% of GDP today is vastly more money than 40% in 1980.

 

Amazingly, as the country gets richer and richer over the decades, the welfare state seems to need more and more money. Logically, the opposite should be true.

 

I think it was more your juxtaposition of spending being 46% of GDP with a comment that spending under Labour had doubled. It could have been interpretated that it had been 23% before Labour got in. From looking at info below it would appear that it was 38.2% when they came in, 47.7% when they left, with a rough steady average of 40% before the financial crisis kicked in.

 

A bigger economy would only mean smaller welfare bills if inequality didn't grow. While the UK has got richer over the last 30 odd years inequality has grown considerably and long-term joblessness hasn't really been solved. The aging population also means growing pension payments, social case and NHS bills.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963

 

1963-64 12.0 38.5

1964-65 13.0 38.1

1965-66 14.5 39.6

1966-67 16.0 41.4

1967-68 18.3 44.6

1968-69 19.3 43.4

1969-70 20.3 42.5

1970-71 22.7 42.7

1971-72 25.2 42.6

1972-73 28.3 41.9

1973-74 33.4 44.4

1974-75 43.7 48.6

1975-76 55.7 49.7

1976-77 63.6 48.6

1977-78 69.5 45.6

1978-79 78.6 45.1

1979-80 93.6 44.6

1980-81 112.5 47.0

1981-82 125.6 47.7

1982-83 138.3 48.1

1983-84 149.7 47.8

1984-85 159.6 47.4

1985-86 166.1 44.9

1986-87 172.0 43.4

1987-88 183.1 41.5

1988-89 190.4 38.8

1989-90 209.7 39.1

1990-91 224.4 38.9

1991-92 251.1 41.3

1992-93 271.5 43.3

1993-94 283.7 42.7

1994-95 296.4 42.1

1995-96 309.5 41.6

1996-97 315.3 39.8

1997-98 321.9 38.2 L

1998-99 330.9 37.2 L

1999-00 343.1 36.3 L

2000-01 364.3 36.8 L

2001-02 389.3 37.7 L

2002-03 421.1 38.6 L

2003-04 455.5 39.4 L

2004-05 492.4 40.5 L

2005-06 524.0 41.2 L

2006-07 549.8 40.8 L

2007-08 583.1 41.0 L

2008-09 629.8 44.0 L

2009-10 670.1 47.7 L

2010-11 687.9 46.7

[SaintBobby]

I think it was more your juxtaposition of spending being 46% of GDP with a comment that spending under Labour had doubled. It could have been interpretated that it had been 23% before Labour got in. From looking at info below it would appear that it was 38.2% when they came in, 47.7% when they left, with a rough steady average of 40% before the financial crisis kicked in.

 

A bigger economy would only mean smaller welfare bills if inequality didn't grow. While the UK has got richer over the last 30 odd years inequality has grown considerably and long-term joblessness hasn't really been solved. The aging population also means growing pension payments, social case and NHS bills.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963

 

1963-64 12.0 38.5

1964-65 13.0 38.1

1965-66 14.5 39.6

1966-67 16.0 41.4

1967-68 18.3 44.6

1968-69 19.3 43.4

1969-70 20.3 42.5

1970-71 22.7 42.7

1971-72 25.2 42.6

1972-73 28.3 41.9

1973-74 33.4 44.4

1974-75 43.7 48.6

1975-76 55.7 49.7

1976-77 63.6 48.6

1977-78 69.5 45.6

1978-79 78.6 45.1

1979-80 93.6 44.6

1980-81 112.5 47.0

1981-82 125.6 47.7

1982-83 138.3 48.1

1983-84 149.7 47.8

1984-85 159.6 47.4

1985-86 166.1 44.9

1986-87 172.0 43.4

1987-88 183.1 41.5

1988-89 190.4 38.8

1989-90 209.7 39.1

1990-91 224.4 38.9

1991-92 251.1 41.3

1992-93 271.5 43.3

1993-94 283.7 42.7

1994-95 296.4 42.1

1995-96 309.5 41.6

1996-97 315.3 39.8

1997-98 321.9 38.2 L

1998-99 330.9 37.2 L

1999-00 343.1 36.3 L

2000-01 364.3 36.8 L

2001-02 389.3 37.7 L

2002-03 421.1 38.6 L

2003-04 455.5 39.4 L

2004-05 492.4 40.5 L

2005-06 524.0 41.2 L

2006-07 549.8 40.8 L

2007-08 583.1 41.0 L

2008-09 629.8 44.0 L

2009-10 670.1 47.7 L

2010-11 687.9 46.7

 

The percentages are right, I'm sure. But if you look at total spending, it has more than doubled. Any shift from 23% to 46% of GDP would have been around about a quadrupling of spending...

 

I don't quite understand your point on inequality. Surely, the welfare state is there to address poverty not inequality. For example, a society in which half of us earn £1m pa and half of us earn £100m pa is much less equal than today, but surely doesn't need a welfare state???

 

Even if you are concerned about inequality, rather than absolute poverty, the last Labour government more than doubled welfare spending, without any discernible effect on inequality. So, high welfare spending doesn't obviously narrow the income gap anyway....

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The percentages are right, I'm sure. But if you look at total spending, it has more than doubled. Any shift from 23% to 46% of GDP would have been around about a quadrupling of spending...

 

I don't quite understand your point on inequality. Surely, the welfare state is there to address poverty not inequality. For example, a society in which half of us earn £1m pa and half of us earn £100m pa is much less equal than today, but surely doesn't need a welfare state???

 

Even if you are concerned about inequality, rather than absolute poverty, the last Labour government more than doubled welfare spending, without any discernible effect on inequality. So, high welfare spending doesn't obviously narrow the income gap anyway....

 

No I'm agreeing with you on the stats, just felt your original statement could have been mis-interpreted.

 

The point about inequality was that with growing inequality you could easily end up with a significant number of people becoming more reliant on welfare even though the economy itself is growing. Hence welfare bills increase despite supposedly more prosperity.

[bridge too far]

'Equality' is a funny notion. I don't actually subscribe to the idea of equality per se but I do strongly believe in equality of opportunity. Of course everybody is different. Some are clever, some are creative (many are both), some are caring and some are lazy and criminal.

 

But no-one starts life with any of these qualities; they develop them in an atmosphere of decent parenting, schooling, health and housing. One of the most successful things the last government did was to set up Sure Start centres that were charged with helping very young children and struggling families to achieve their potential by giving them a grounded start in life. Sadly many of these centres have closed or are earmarked for closure. Such a shame.

[View From The Top]

As far as I can tell by reading this thread it's the middle band tax payers that are saying taxing the very wealthy is wrong even though it's there tax avoidance schemes that keep their own tax high.

 

They seem to be quite happy to moan about the welfare fraudsters though which is simply the other side of the same coin.

[Sour Mash]

As far as I can tell by reading this thread it's the middle band tax payers that are saying taxing the very wealthy is wrong even though it's there tax avoidance schemes that keep their own tax high.

 

They seem to be quite happy to moan about the welfare fraudsters though which is simply the other side of the same coin.

No, it's not simply the other side of the coin. The difference is that the very high earners at least have earnt their money, unlike the benefit cheats. Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, the very rch wouldn't go to such lengths to avoid paying them. This country earns more than enough through taxes, both direct and indirect; it's how that money has been spent that is the problem.

[View From The Top]

No, it's not simply the other side of the coin. The difference is that the very high earners at least have earnt their money, unlike the benefit cheats. Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, the very rch wouldn't go to such lengths to avoid paying them. This country earns more than enough through taxes, both direct and indirect; it's how that money has been spent that is the problem.

 

Boll.oxs. The very rich pay very little tax meaning we have to pay more. It has nothing to do with "high taxes" it's to do with immortality.

 

Someone earning billions from the UK and paying a mere £38k tax has nothing to do with high UK tax rates and everything to do with greed, immorality and pure tax avoidance.

 

People rightly mither about benefit fraud, getting something for nothing, but seem quite happy for the very wealthy to get away with paying fu.ck all.