Triple lock needn't be forever but out pensions are so much lower than other wealthy countries. We are playing catch up.
There are many tricks Reeves is missing in taxing the wealthy, mainly on multiple homes and exporting wealth to tax havens. I wonder if there is a system in place for taxing Airbnb leasees.
We're not a wealthy country on a per capita basis. It's time we stopped pretending we are.
We are the 6th wealthiest country in the world. The fact that this doesn't morph into per capita riches is a stain on our society, run by the haves (at the expense of the havenots), few of whom have built their own fortunes, inherited wealth and entitlement, mostly stashed overseas.
Tax everybody 100% on all income over £100,000 and nationalise all private land and property.
Yes, let's deter people from wanting to earn more money. Great idea. Nobody would bother taking jobs for over £100k. They'd just take the easiest job at under £100k, leaving huge gaps in businessess and causing a collapse by not being able to attract top talent to the UK. All companies move to overseas operations as a result and Seth has destroyed the UK economy.
Triple lock needn't be forever but out pensions are so much lower than other wealthy countries. We are playing catch up.
There are many tricks Reeves is missing in taxing the wealthy, mainly on multiple homes and exporting wealth to tax havens. I wonder if there is a system in place for taxing Airbnb leasees.
We're not a wealthy country on a per capita basis. It's time we stopped pretending we are.
We are the 6th wealthiest country in the world. The fact that this doesn't morph into per capita riches is a stain on our society, run by the haves (at the expense of the havenots), few of whom have built their own fortunes, inherited wealth and entitlement, mostly stashed overseas.
Give me a Scandinavian economic model anyday.
India's the 5th richest country in the world with a slightly bigger GDP than the UK but a population that's 20 times larger. By your logic they're a wealthier society than we are which is clearly nonsense.
Tax everybody 100% on all income over £100,000 and nationalise all private land and property.
Yes, let's deter people from wanting to earn more money. Great idea. Nobody would bother taking jobs for over £100k. They'd just take the easiest job at under £100k, leaving huge gaps in businessess and causing a collapse by not being able to attract top talent to the UK. All companies move to overseas operations as a result and Seth has destroyed the UK economy.
Nice one Seth, you killed us all.
Just like Liz Truss, who knew how alike they really are.
Triple lock needn't be forever but out pensions are so much lower than other wealthy countries. We are playing catch up.
There are many tricks Reeves is missing in taxing the wealthy, mainly on multiple homes and exporting wealth to tax havens. I wonder if there is a system in place for taxing Airbnb leasees.
We're not a wealthy country on a per capita basis. It's time we stopped pretending we are.
We are the 6th wealthiest country in the world. The fact that this doesn't morph into per capita riches is a stain on our society, run by the haves (at the expense of the havenots), few of whom have built their own fortunes, inherited wealth and entitlement, mostly stashed overseas.
Give me a Scandinavian economic model anyday.
India's the 5th richest country in the world with a slightly bigger GDP than the UK but a population that's 20 times larger. By your logic they're a wealthier society than we are which is clearly nonsense.
Triple lock needn't be forever but out pensions are so much lower than other wealthy countries. We are playing catch up.
There are many tricks Reeves is missing in taxing the wealthy, mainly on multiple homes and exporting wealth to tax havens. I wonder if there is a system in place for taxing Airbnb leasees.
We're not a wealthy country on a per capita basis. It's time we stopped pretending we are.
We are the 6th wealthiest country in the world. The fact that this doesn't morph into per capita riches is a stain on our society, run by the haves (at the expense of the havenots), few of whom have built their own fortunes, inherited wealth and entitlement, mostly stashed overseas.
Give me a Scandinavian economic model anyday.
India's the 5th richest country in the world with a slightly bigger GDP than the UK but a population that's 20 times larger. By your logic they're a wealthier society than we are which is clearly nonsense.
I think you are enhancing my point.
Only If your point is that GDP is a pointless metric for gauging the relative wealth of a nation.
The wildcard tax grab I'd do is introduce a lower rate of CGT on the sale of FIRST residences above a certain limit. Why should gains through the rise in house prices be treated differently from second homes or shares?
I suppose you could think of your primary home as being in the equivalent of an ISA. CGT on sale of first residences AND stamp duty would destroy liquidity in the market in my opinion. Old codgers would never downsize.
Houses should be for living in, not a financial investment. Our taxation system encourages people to buy the most expensive house they can afford, as it's tax free gain if it goes up.
If someone has a £500k house which rises to £1.3m when they sell it, why shouldn't a percentage of that gain be taxable?
So if you move then what? So I buy a house for £500k, goes up to £1.3m, if I pay tax on the gain in full or part I couldn't then afford to buy the house I've just sold (let alone once you include stamp duty).
Can you offset the cost of buying it (i.e. with a mortgage would have cost a lot more than £500k, a £400k mortgage over 25 years is roughly £650k, plus the £100k deposit so cost is £750k), can I offset maintenance costs? What about inflation?
The wildcard tax grab I'd do is introduce a lower rate of CGT on the sale of FIRST residences above a certain limit. Why should gains through the rise in house prices be treated differently from second homes or shares?
I suppose you could think of your primary home as being in the equivalent of an ISA. CGT on sale of first residences AND stamp duty would destroy liquidity in the market in my opinion. Old codgers would never downsize.
Houses should be for living in, not a financial investment. Our taxation system encourages people to buy the most expensive house they can afford, as it's tax free gain if it goes up.
If someone has a £500k house which rises to £1.3m when they sell it, why shouldn't a percentage of that gain be taxable?
So if you move then what? So I buy a house for £500k, goes up to £1.3m, if I pay tax on the gain in full or part I couldn't then afford to buy the house I've just sold (let alone once you include stamp duty).
Can you offset the cost of buying it (i.e. with a mortgage would have cost a lot more than £500k, a £400k mortgage over 25 years is roughly £650k, plus the £100k deposit so cost is £750k), can I offset maintenance costs? What about inflation?
Not sure you've thought this through!
I'm not saying it would be easy, but the effect of the current rules is to leave a massive capital gain, caused by rocketing house prices, untaxed. The alternative is to bring in some sort of wealth tax, but that would mean that asset rich people with little free income would struggle to pay it.
This is quite an interesting article, based on charging Capital Gains tax, not on regular buying and selling, but on the "final" lifetime disposal
The wildcard tax grab I'd do is introduce a lower rate of CGT on the sale of FIRST residences above a certain limit. Why should gains through the rise in house prices be treated differently from second homes or shares?
I suppose you could think of your primary home as being in the equivalent of an ISA. CGT on sale of first residences AND stamp duty would destroy liquidity in the market in my opinion. Old codgers would never downsize.
Houses should be for living in, not a financial investment. Our taxation system encourages people to buy the most expensive house they can afford, as it's tax free gain if it goes up.
If someone has a £500k house which rises to £1.3m when they sell it, why shouldn't a percentage of that gain be taxable?
So if you move then what? So I buy a house for £500k, goes up to £1.3m, if I pay tax on the gain in full or part I couldn't then afford to buy the house I've just sold (let alone once you include stamp duty).
Can you offset the cost of buying it (i.e. with a mortgage would have cost a lot more than £500k, a £400k mortgage over 25 years is roughly £650k, plus the £100k deposit so cost is £750k), can I offset maintenance costs? What about inflation?
Not sure you've thought this through!
I'm not saying it would be easy, but the effect of the current rules is to leave a massive capital gain, caused by rocketing house prices, untaxed. The alternative is to bring in some sort of wealth tax, but that would mean that asset rich people with little free income would struggle to pay it.
This is quite an interesting article, based on charging Capital Gains tax, not on regular buying and selling, but on the "final" lifetime disposal
I think this is almost impossible. If this was brought in and someone dies today aged 100, how on earth are you going to show property purchases and sales potentially back to the 1940's and the improvements made and their costs? I'd struggle to do that for the last 15 years let alone 80! Do you have receipts for improvements from 5/10/15/20/25/50 years ago?
It would also push the tax down the line, i.e. someone who's currently a long way from IHT suddenly has to pay tax simply because their house now worth £120k has doubled in value, the person with a £3m home may pay less? Wouldn't;t that widen the wealth divide potentially?
I assume debt would need to be taken off, wouldn't the wealthy just maintain a large debt against the property? Otherwise someone mid way through a mortgage who dies could owe more than the home is worth (net).
I just don't see anyway that this form of tax (CGT) would ever work against a main residence/s
The wildcard tax grab I'd do is introduce a lower rate of CGT on the sale of FIRST residences above a certain limit. Why should gains through the rise in house prices be treated differently from second homes or shares?
I suppose you could think of your primary home as being in the equivalent of an ISA. CGT on sale of first residences AND stamp duty would destroy liquidity in the market in my opinion. Old codgers would never downsize.
Houses should be for living in, not a financial investment. Our taxation system encourages people to buy the most expensive house they can afford, as it's tax free gain if it goes up.
If someone has a £500k house which rises to £1.3m when they sell it, why shouldn't a percentage of that gain be taxable?
So if you move then what? So I buy a house for £500k, goes up to £1.3m, if I pay tax on the gain in full or part I couldn't then afford to buy the house I've just sold (let alone once you include stamp duty).
Can you offset the cost of buying it (i.e. with a mortgage would have cost a lot more than £500k, a £400k mortgage over 25 years is roughly £650k, plus the £100k deposit so cost is £750k), can I offset maintenance costs? What about inflation?
Not sure you've thought this through!
I'm not saying it would be easy, but the effect of the current rules is to leave a massive capital gain, caused by rocketing house prices, untaxed. The alternative is to bring in some sort of wealth tax, but that would mean that asset rich people with little free income would struggle to pay it.
This is quite an interesting article, based on charging Capital Gains tax, not on regular buying and selling, but on the "final" lifetime disposal
It is just a bit of fun but what it does show is that to raise money you have to make decisions that are going to be unpopular somewhere if you want to stay within fiscal rules. Where there is some leeway is you could change the fiscal rules. Currently, if you borrow x to gain y, the number factored in is x, and it doesn't matter what y is as long as it is bigger than x. But if you instead look at y, your return on the investment, x can be higher and stay within your fiscal rules. This actually makes more sense as long as you are confident y is going to be larger. X has to be for something that promotes growth, not for subsidising creaking public services though and indeed there is a limit to what x can be to maintain confidence.
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
Yeah, just do whatever you like and blame it on a "black hole" you've been left with, whenever questioned or criticised. You can make it a bit more sinister sounding by calling it a "secret black hole". You really do need to remember the size of your black hole though.
That's what they ALL seem to do, and we suck it up
It is just a bit of fun but what it does show is that to raise money you have to make decisions that are going to be unpopular somewhere if you want to stay within fiscal rules. Where there is some leeway is you could change the fiscal rules. Currently, if you borrow x to gain y, the number factored in is x, and it doesn't matter what y is as long as it is bigger than x. But if you instead look at y, your return on the investment, x can be higher and stay within your fiscal rules. This actually makes more sense as long as you are confident y is going to be larger. X has to be for something that promotes growth, not for subsidising creaking public services though and indeed there is a limit to what x can be to maintain confidence.
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
They weren't tough with the pay rises they awarded to junior doctors and train drivers though. They may or may not have been deserved, but they've widened the fiscal gap.
That's yet another quandary in managing the public finances...
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
You've convinced me, Seth. Moving the fam to North Korea ASAP
Comments
Give me a Scandinavian economic model anyday.
Prefer Dennis Healey, 'tax them until the pips squeak' about tax avoiders like Sunak and Cameron, actual PMs of this country.
I'm giving it 10 posts until the Irish border and face masks appear.
First 20k of household income tax free
(But, in short, yes).
Nice one Seth, you killed us all.
India's the 5th richest country in the world with a slightly bigger GDP than the UK but a population that's 20 times larger. By your logic they're a wealthier society than we are which is clearly nonsense.
I managed to stick to the budget but became known as "The Collector" due to record high taxes and % of tax claimed compared to GDP.
Can you offset the cost of buying it (i.e. with a mortgage would have cost a lot more than £500k, a £400k mortgage over 25 years is roughly £650k, plus the £100k deposit so cost is £750k), can I offset maintenance costs? What about inflation?
Not sure you've thought this through!
This is quite an interesting article, based on charging Capital Gains tax, not on regular buying and selling, but on the "final" lifetime disposal
https://taxingwealth.uk/2023/09/28/charging-capital-gains-tax-on-the-final-disposal-of-a-persons-main-residence-might-raise-10-billion-of-tax-a-year/
It would also push the tax down the line, i.e. someone who's currently a long way from IHT suddenly has to pay tax simply because their house now worth £120k has doubled in value, the person with a £3m home may pay less? Wouldn't;t that widen the wealth divide potentially?
I assume debt would need to be taken off, wouldn't the wealthy just maintain a large debt against the property? Otherwise someone mid way through a mortgage who dies could owe more than the home is worth (net).
I just don't see anyway that this form of tax (CGT) would ever work against a main residence/s
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
That's what they ALL seem to do, and we suck it up
That's yet another quandary in managing the public finances...
I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion.
However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal.
That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job.
I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive.
For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival.
The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery.
A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training.
But yeah let's pay them the same money.