Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Looks like the rich are spending all their earnings as well. We need greater investment and not just more consumption if we are to get out of the rut we are in.
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
Edit: the last link has someone in 14/15 earning 110k (although not clear what that is derived from as refers to including 'benefits') and they would pay 38k in taxes of 'various kinds'. Unless I'm missing something, income tax and NI on £110k would be 41k that year, that's before other taxes (VAT etc).
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Is taking away/reducing tax perks really a stealth tax?
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
I agree but maybe you didn't read the Labour or indeed the Green Party manifesto.
I do remember McDonnell digging up that old Bennite idea of a National Investment Bank fro the manifesto but there was precious little on how it would work during the election campaign. I do remember that Tony Benn was rather keen on the idea as well - but since his investment ideas were to spend money on Concorde and British Leyland you can perhaps understand why people might be a little sceptical. I also remember how McDonnell proposed a sudden rise in Corporation Tax - but never explained how that would improve business investment rather than the opposite.
Osbourne cut CT from 28% to 19% to "encourage invesstment" of which there is little sign. This is for companies that don't hide their profits offshore or had sweetheart deals with the Tories. McDonnell proposed a hike to 26%, below many G20 economies. Did he ever claim it would improve investment? It could hardly further harm our stagnating economy, but may cut dividends of uber-rich.
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
I agree but maybe you didn't read the Labour or indeed the Green Party manifesto.
I do remember McDonnell digging up that old Bennite idea of a National Investment Bank fro the manifesto but there was precious little on how it would work during the election campaign. I do remember that Tony Benn was rather keen on the idea as well - but since his investment ideas were to spend money on Concorde and British Leyland you can perhaps understand why people might be a little sceptical. I also remember how McDonnell proposed a sudden rise in Corporation Tax - but never explained how that would improve business investment rather than the opposite.
Osbourne cut CT from 28% to 19% to "encourage invesstment" of which there is little sign. This is for companies that don't hide their profits offshore or had sweetheart deals with the Tories. McDonnell proposed a hike to 26%, below many G20 economies. Did he ever claim it would improve investment? It could hardly further harm our stagnating economy, but may cut dividends of uber-rich.
McDonnell as a self professed Marxist is not interested in improving investment but in just accelerating the contradictions of capitalism. Osborne is just an idiot who thought reducing the tax rate while deflating the economy was all that was necessary. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between those two extremes including a role for the State that is of a more social democratic bent e.g. see my comments on the German govt's support for its Mittelstand.
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Tell me about it, it's why I don't really pay into my own pension anymore.
A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE..
Buy Gold Sovereigns for your retirement, CGT free, legal tender of £1 so just before I die I'll buy something off my daughters for 1k, pay with 1,000 sovereigns and therefore they get 1,000 sovereigns worth around £250k in their gold weight currently - simples.
"A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE.."
Buts lets not worry too much as they will be entitled to c£250k on which they will pay no tax whatsoever - and then receive a pension of at least £37,500 on top of their state pension which has been funded by all those lower earning plebs who pay their taxes and don't have the benefit of a similar pension unless they have probably put away 10% of their income into a DC scheme for many years. I'm sure we can all feel their suffering.
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Tell me about it, it's why I don't really pay into my own pension anymore.
A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE..
Buy Gold Sovereigns for your retirement, CGT free, legal tender of £1 so just before I die I'll buy something off my daughters for 1k, pay with 1,000 sovereigns and therefore they get 1,000 sovereigns worth around £250k in their gold weight currently - simples.
Is that right? hmmm *scratches chin!!
And yes the tax relief tapering has put paid to any more contributions. Not complaining as I always thought it unfair to get 45% tax relief on up to £40k a year (used to be more of course).
The options are; do we want a country with 3rd world social infrastructure and 9th in the billionaires league, or do we want a fair society? Austerity wasn't invented by George Osbourne/Phillip Hammond, it has been introduced by every Tory Chancellor since I've been voting.
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Tell me about it, it's why I don't really pay into my own pension anymore.
A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE..
Buy Gold Sovereigns for your retirement, CGT free, legal tender of £1 so just before I die I'll buy something off my daughters for 1k, pay with 1,000 sovereigns and therefore they get 1,000 sovereigns worth around £250k in their gold weight currently - simples.
Is that right? hmmm *scratches chin!!
And yes the tax relief tapering has put paid to any more contributions. Not complaining as I always thought it unfair to get 45% tax relief on up to £40k a year (used to be more of course).
Even with the extra 25% tax imposed on those with pension pots now more than £1m it is still pretty likely that the benefit that they on additional pension contributions ( at 40/45% for most concerned) will still outweigh the additional cost - but these millionaires will still whinge when their subsidies are reduced!
The options are; do we want a country with 3rd world social infrastructure and 9th in the billionaires league, or do we want a fair society? Austerity wasn't invented by George Osbourne/Phillip Hammond, it has been introduced by every Tory Chancellor since I've been voting.
Yes - but I think we need a bit more than a Robin Hood model to actually put right many many years of economic mismanagement, you are making the assumption that there will always be enough cake to share out.
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Tell me about it, it's why I don't really pay into my own pension anymore.
A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE..
Buy Gold Sovereigns for your retirement, CGT free, legal tender of £1 so just before I die I'll buy something off my daughters for 1k, pay with 1,000 sovereigns and therefore they get 1,000 sovereigns worth around £250k in their gold weight currently - simples.
Is that right? hmmm *scratches chin!!
And yes the tax relief tapering has put paid to any more contributions. Not complaining as I always thought it unfair to get 45% tax relief on up to £40k a year (used to be more of course).
@bobmunro don't do all your IHT planning on the back of it but:
1. It is fact that as sovereigns are considered legal tender (with a value of £1) they do not attract CGT. Coins Post 1835 or some such date anyway. 2. It's probably less clear what view the tax man would take if you did as I said above, but as they are legal tender and therefore if a seller is prepared to accept them as legal tender at their legal tender value of £1 each there is probably not a lot they can do although I am sure they will attempt to say it was purely tax avoidance, whether they would win that battle who knows.
but shhhh...... don't go telling everyone.
edit: or just give them to your children or whoever 7 years ago
Better to scrap IHT, which raises fuck all and any person with enough wedge to employ a half decent financial planner will avoid either most of it or the entire sum, and instead introduce a wealth tax that encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it.
The options are; do we want a country with 3rd world social infrastructure and 9th in the billionaires league, or do we want a fair society? Austerity wasn't invented by George Osbourne/Phillip Hammond, it has been introduced by every Tory Chancellor since I've been voting.
True but I didn't see Blair or Brown do any better tbh
Better to scrap IHT, which raises fuck all and any person with enough wedge to employ a half decent financial planner will avoid either most of it or the entire sum, and instead introduce a wealth tax that encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it.
About 5bn a year I thought? Depends on your definition of F all.
People with wedge would find ways of avoiding a wealth tax anyway, I might have got this wrong but weren't labour proposing to increase IHT (by lowering the limit) and also some form of wealth tax on property also?
I think amongst other things the close election has made a lot of the rich move more into easily moveable assets, classic cars, watches, gold (coins or bullion) have become very popular the last few years and even more so in the past 6 months, prices of all of those are pretty much at an all time high.
Better to scrap IHT, which raises fuck all and any person with enough wedge to employ a half decent financial planner will avoid either most of it or the entire sum, and instead introduce a wealth tax that encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it.
About 5bn a year I thought? Depends on your definition of F all.
People with wedge would find ways of avoiding a wealth tax anyway, I might have got this wrong but weren't labour proposing to increase IHT (by lowering the limit) and also some form of wealth tax on property also?
I think amongst other things the close election has made a lot of the rich move more into easily moveable assets, classic cars, watches, gold (coins or bullion) have become very popular the last few years and even more so in the past 6 months, prices of all of those are pretty much at an all time high.
In comparison to the total tax take per year, it is fuck all and a wealth tax, if implemented properly so the rich couldn't avoid it and those who tried to help the rich hide their money were fined for doing so, could raise many times more money. It would also be much fairer than inheritance tax, as inheritance tax automatically disadvantages those who do not have the resources to avoid it or those who are unable to plan their affairs seven years in advance (ie those who are killed well before they are expected to die of natural causes). Grieving families shouldn't be expected to deal with tax bills, living millionaires with huge country estates or oligarchs who buy up tracts of property are a much better target.
It shouldn't just be a wealth tax but a capital tax. Those who own the means of production effectively own the economy and those who have an unfair share should expect a higher burden, encouraging them to share the wealth.
Better to scrap IHT, which raises fuck all and any person with enough wedge to employ a half decent financial planner will avoid either most of it or the entire sum, and instead introduce a wealth tax that encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it.
About 5bn a year I thought? Depends on your definition of F all.
People with wedge would find ways of avoiding a wealth tax anyway, I might have got this wrong but weren't labour proposing to increase IHT (by lowering the limit) and also some form of wealth tax on property also?
I think amongst other things the close election has made a lot of the rich move more into easily moveable assets, classic cars, watches, gold (coins or bullion) have become very popular the last few years and even more so in the past 6 months, prices of all of those are pretty much at an all time high.
In comparison to the total tax take per year, it is fuck all and a wealth tax, if implemented properly so the rich couldn't avoid it and those who tried to help the rich hide their money were fined for doing so, could raise many times more money. It would also be much fairer than inheritance tax, as inheritance tax automatically disadvantages those who do not have the resources to avoid it or those who are unable to plan their affairs seven years in advance (ie those who are killed well before they are expected to die of natural causes). Grieving families shouldn't be expected to deal with tax bills, living millionaires with huge country estates or oligarchs who buy up tracts of property are a much better target.
It shouldn't just be a wealth tax but a capital tax. Those who own the means of production effectively own the economy and those who have an unfair share should expect a higher burden, encouraging them to share the wealth.
You've gone from Tory Boy to socialist, and now Marxist! All in two years.
Wow on the last paragraph, what makes someone in your view have an 'unfair' share? Think that's a bit harsh and almost communist like.
The two richest people I know both came from nothing, have took huge risks, responsible for giving jobs to probably over 1,000 people at any one time and are extremely generous. One is now retired having sold his last company and worth around £150m, the other maybe worth double that, 50 and still working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
Whilst I applaud their efforts, £150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that. It isn't the money but the disparity between it and people who have nothing!
Whilst I applaud their efforts, £150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that. It isn't the money but the disparity between it and people who have nothing!
What is a 'fair share' and what about their success and what that has contributed in the bigger picture?
So what would you like those two to do? Would you like to cap their wealth? Get them to cease trading when they reached £15 or £30m? Close their companies at that point and make 1,000 people redundant, stop paying corp tax etc?
I'd suspect that for every penny they have made, others whether it is their employees or the state through private and corp tax etc has made 1000x that. The 1st guy used to take about £500k in salary and up to that again in dividends (sometimes nothing), the companies salary bill was over £30m annually.
Better to scrap IHT, which raises fuck all and any person with enough wedge to employ a half decent financial planner will avoid either most of it or the entire sum, and instead introduce a wealth tax that encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it.
About 5bn a year I thought? Depends on your definition of F all.
People with wedge would find ways of avoiding a wealth tax anyway, I might have got this wrong but weren't labour proposing to increase IHT (by lowering the limit) and also some form of wealth tax on property also?
I think amongst other things the close election has made a lot of the rich move more into easily moveable assets, classic cars, watches, gold (coins or bullion) have become very popular the last few years and even more so in the past 6 months, prices of all of those are pretty much at an all time high.
In comparison to the total tax take per year, it is fuck all and a wealth tax, if implemented properly so the rich couldn't avoid it and those who tried to help the rich hide their money were fined for doing so, could raise many times more money. It would also be much fairer than inheritance tax, as inheritance tax automatically disadvantages those who do not have the resources to avoid it or those who are unable to plan their affairs seven years in advance (ie those who are killed well before they are expected to die of natural causes). Grieving families shouldn't be expected to deal with tax bills, living millionaires with huge country estates or oligarchs who buy up tracts of property are a much better target.
It shouldn't just be a wealth tax but a capital tax. Those who own the means of production effectively own the economy and those who have an unfair share should expect a higher burden, encouraging them to share the wealth.
You've gone from Tory Boy to socialist, and now Marxist! All in two years.
I still think you're on the wind-up, Fishy!
Took me a bit longer, but I got there in the end too. Open your eyes and see...
Whilst I applaud their efforts, £150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that. It isn't the money but the disparity between it and people who have nothing!
What is a 'fair share' and what about their success and what that has contributed in the bigger picture?
So what would you like those two to do? Would you like to cap their wealth? Get them to cease trading when they reached £15 or £30m? Close their companies at that point and make 1,000 people redundant, stop paying corp tax etc?
I'd suspect that for every penny they have made, others whether it is their employees or the state through private and corp tax etc has made 1000x that. The 1st guy used to take about £500k in salary and up to that again in dividends (sometimes nothing), the companies salary bill was over £30m annually.
Why ask me what I would like those two to do when you have already decided? The solution is admittedly complicated but lies within the taxation system.
Whilst I applaud their efforts, £150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that. It isn't the money but the disparity between it and people who have nothing!
What is a 'fair share' and what about their success and what that has contributed in the bigger picture?
So what would you like those two to do? Would you like to cap their wealth? Get them to cease trading when they reached £15 or £30m? Close their companies at that point and make 1,000 people redundant, stop paying corp tax etc?
I'd suspect that for every penny they have made, others whether it is their employees or the state through private and corp tax etc has made 1000x that. The 1st guy used to take about £500k in salary and up to that again in dividends (sometimes nothing), the companies salary bill was over £30m annually.
Why ask me what I would like those two to do when you have already decided? The solution is admittedly complicated but lies within the taxation system.
The comment I was responding to wasn't about how much tax they have or haven't paid but that they had more than their 'fair share' of wealth which both you and @Fiiish have stated. Whether that's £150m or £300m.
On that basis the £300m man had he have paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have roughly £150m, but apparently that's still more than their fair share........... it seems you just want to cap someone's wealth. So a question to both of you, what should that cap be or what is an acceptable amount of money for someone to have?
Saying the wealthy should pay more tax is one thing, what you both are saying is something entirely different.
Wow on the last paragraph, what makes someone in your view have an 'unfair' share? Think that's a bit harsh and almost communist like.
The two richest people I know both came from nothing, have took huge risks, responsible for giving jobs to probably over 1,000 people at any one time and are extremely generous. One is now retired having sold his last company and worth around £150m, the other maybe worth double that, 50 and still working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
Why is where they are 'unfair'?
I can't see where I have suggested physically removing all excess wealth and assets from every citizen and placing it in the hands of the state so the Communist accusation is hyperbole at best.
I'm not for one second suggesting that those who are rich now don't deserve to be. There are many who do not deserve to be as rich as they are but by no means all. But there have been many studies into the damaging effects that wealth disparity, rather than income disparity, has on society and these have been widely documented by many high profile experts. Society does not benefit from having people hoarding wealth that they will never be able to meaningfully spend even if they lived several times over.
There is simply not enough room to give a decent account of the problem with the kinds of wealth accumulation we are talking about but there are 3 basic points that give good reason as to why taxing wealth as well as income has become necessary in recent years.
First of all, if you were of working age between 1975 and 2000 you benefited from being in a one-off period of huge advantages that will never be repeated. A combination of the demographics that made up the workforce following the cataclysmic effect that the Second World War had on the population, huge social spending, capital being extremely accessible and financial controls being loosened meant that someone with a good business sense during this time had unprecedented opportunities to accumulate huge amounts of wealth. This was even spurred on by the technology boom in the nineties that again allowed people in the right place at the right time to control the market. Nowadays, it is hundreds of times harder to break into the super-wealthy, simple because of how capitalism in our society works: those with the money are able to continue to accumulate wealth at the expense of generating opportunities for those without money. Those entering the work force nowadays face much higher living costs and the risk of starting a business is much higher because the super wealthy already control the economy. This generation will be much poorer than the previous one and are far more likely to not be able to have a decent retirement or far more likely to not economic hardship such as homelessness, and even less likely to own their own home. Those who are super wealthy today are, in most cases, a product of fortunately being alive and working in the right era.
Second, no one simply makes it on their own from nothing. Society helps in a big way, including education, regulations, safety and stability. These things all contribute to an environment where someone is able to amass hundreds of millions of pounds and it is right that those who have benefited the most from society ought to pay in the most (which they do, but they could afford to pay much, much more and not even notice the difference to their lifestyle).
Third, simply fortune. Not being hit by a drink driver or getting ill young or being born with a disability that affects your ability to learn and work. Someone could have been weeks away from starting a business that would have become a billion pound enterprise but then they are put in a coma. Not everyone gets the opportunity to be a millionaire. In fact not everyone wants to be: nurses are clearly not in it for the money but we have a national scandal where university-educated workers who are doing some of these most selfless and charitable work are living in poverty. We need mofe money to come from somewhere; I don't think that money should come from public sector workers, those on housing benefit or those who have children to feed.
Brilliantly put Fiiish. The bloke working 16 hours obviously loves it, good for him, obviously that's where he gets his kicks rather than the actual accumulation of wealth. My only beef is if he, like many employers, gives himself a salary 20 times larger than someone working equally as hard in his company.
Whilst I applaud their efforts, £150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that. It isn't the money but the disparity between it and people who have nothing!
What is a 'fair share' and what about their success and what that has contributed in the bigger picture?
So what would you like those two to do? Would you like to cap their wealth? Get them to cease trading when they reached £15 or £30m? Close their companies at that point and make 1,000 people redundant, stop paying corp tax etc?
I'd suspect that for every penny they have made, others whether it is their employees or the state through private and corp tax etc has made 1000x that. The 1st guy used to take about £500k in salary and up to that again in dividends (sometimes nothing), the companies salary bill was over £30m annually.
Why ask me what I would like those two to do when you have already decided? The solution is admittedly complicated but lies within the taxation system.
The comment I was responding to wasn't about how much tax they have or haven't paid but that they had more than their 'fair share' of wealth which both you and @Fiiish have stated. Whether that's £150m or £300m.
On that basis the £300m man had he have paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have roughly £150m, but apparently that's still more than their fair share........... it seems you just want to cap someone's wealth. So a question to both of you, what should that cap be or what is an acceptable amount of money for someone to have?
Saying the wealthy should pay more tax is one thing, what you both are saying is something entirely different.
Comments
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/848/economics/savings-ratio-uk/
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
Edit: the last link has someone in 14/15 earning 110k (although not clear what that is derived from as refers to including 'benefits') and they would pay 38k in taxes of 'various kinds'. Unless I'm missing something, income tax and NI on £110k would be 41k that year, that's before other taxes (VAT etc).
am I missing something?
A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE..
Buy Gold Sovereigns for your retirement, CGT free, legal tender of £1 so just before I die I'll buy something off my daughters for 1k, pay with 1,000 sovereigns and therefore they get 1,000 sovereigns worth around £250k in their gold weight currently - simples.
Buts lets not worry too much as they will be entitled to c£250k on which they will pay no tax whatsoever - and then receive a pension of at least £37,500 on top of their state pension which has been funded by all those lower earning plebs who pay their taxes and don't have the benefit of a similar pension unless they have probably put away 10% of their income into a DC scheme for many years. I'm sure we can all feel their suffering.
And yes the tax relief tapering has put paid to any more contributions. Not complaining as I always thought it unfair to get 45% tax relief on up to £40k a year (used to be more of course).
Do all DB schemes allow a 25% lump sum still?
1. It is fact that as sovereigns are considered legal tender (with a value of £1) they do not attract CGT. Coins Post 1835 or some such date anyway.
2. It's probably less clear what view the tax man would take if you did as I said above, but as they are legal tender and therefore if a seller is prepared to accept them as legal tender at their legal tender value of £1 each there is probably not a lot they can do although I am sure they will attempt to say it was purely tax avoidance, whether they would win that battle who knows.
but shhhh...... don't go telling everyone.
edit: or just give them to your children or whoever 7 years ago
People with wedge would find ways of avoiding a wealth tax anyway, I might have got this wrong but weren't labour proposing to increase IHT (by lowering the limit) and also some form of wealth tax on property also?
I think amongst other things the close election has made a lot of the rich move more into easily moveable assets, classic cars, watches, gold (coins or bullion) have become very popular the last few years and even more so in the past 6 months, prices of all of those are pretty much at an all time high.
It shouldn't just be a wealth tax but a capital tax. Those who own the means of production effectively own the economy and those who have an unfair share should expect a higher burden, encouraging them to share the wealth.
I still think you're on the wind-up, Fishy!
The two richest people I know both came from nothing, have took huge risks, responsible for giving jobs to probably over 1,000 people at any one time and are extremely generous. One is now retired having sold his last company and worth around £150m, the other maybe worth double that, 50 and still working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
Why is where they are 'unfair'?
So what would you like those two to do? Would you like to cap their wealth? Get them to cease trading when they reached £15 or £30m? Close their companies at that point and make 1,000 people redundant, stop paying corp tax etc?
I'd suspect that for every penny they have made, others whether it is their employees or the state through private and corp tax etc has made 1000x that. The 1st guy used to take about £500k in salary and up to that again in dividends (sometimes nothing), the companies salary bill was over £30m annually.
The comment I was responding to wasn't about how much tax they have or haven't paid but that they had more than their 'fair share' of wealth which both you and @Fiiish have stated. Whether that's £150m or £300m.
On that basis the £300m man had he have paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have roughly £150m, but apparently that's still more than their fair share........... it seems you just want to cap someone's wealth. So a question to both of you, what should that cap be or what is an acceptable amount of money for someone to have?
Saying the wealthy should pay more tax is one thing, what you both are saying is something entirely different. Or maybe an anti communist thread
I'm not for one second suggesting that those who are rich now don't deserve to be. There are many who do not deserve to be as rich as they are but by no means all. But there have been many studies into the damaging effects that wealth disparity, rather than income disparity, has on society and these have been widely documented by many high profile experts. Society does not benefit from having people hoarding wealth that they will never be able to meaningfully spend even if they lived several times over.
There is simply not enough room to give a decent account of the problem with the kinds of wealth accumulation we are talking about but there are 3 basic points that give good reason as to why taxing wealth as well as income has become necessary in recent years.
First of all, if you were of working age between 1975 and 2000 you benefited from being in a one-off period of huge advantages that will never be repeated. A combination of the demographics that made up the workforce following the cataclysmic effect that the Second World War had on the population, huge social spending, capital being extremely accessible and financial controls being loosened meant that someone with a good business sense during this time had unprecedented opportunities to accumulate huge amounts of wealth. This was even spurred on by the technology boom in the nineties that again allowed people in the right place at the right time to control the market. Nowadays, it is hundreds of times harder to break into the super-wealthy, simple because of how capitalism in our society works: those with the money are able to continue to accumulate wealth at the expense of generating opportunities for those without money. Those entering the work force nowadays face much higher living costs and the risk of starting a business is much higher because the super wealthy already control the economy. This generation will be much poorer than the previous one and are far more likely to not be able to have a decent retirement or far more likely to not economic hardship such as homelessness, and even less likely to own their own home. Those who are super wealthy today are, in most cases, a product of fortunately being alive and working in the right era.
Second, no one simply makes it on their own from nothing. Society helps in a big way, including education, regulations, safety and stability. These things all contribute to an environment where someone is able to amass hundreds of millions of pounds and it is right that those who have benefited the most from society ought to pay in the most (which they do, but they could afford to pay much, much more and not even notice the difference to their lifestyle).
Third, simply fortune. Not being hit by a drink driver or getting ill young or being born with a disability that affects your ability to learn and work. Someone could have been weeks away from starting a business that would have become a billion pound enterprise but then they are put in a coma. Not everyone gets the opportunity to be a millionaire. In fact not everyone wants to be: nurses are clearly not in it for the money but we have a national scandal where university-educated workers who are doing some of these most selfless and charitable work are living in poverty. We need mofe money to come from somewhere; I don't think that money should come from public sector workers, those on housing benefit or those who have children to feed.