Tax reform?

JohnD said:
Bikerboy thinks it is not logical for the people who have the most money to pay. He pretends, but doesn’t, really, believe, it is logical to expect people who haven't got any money to do it.
Click to expand...

"Flogging a dead horse" or "Getting blood out of a stone", in layman's terms.
 
JohnD said:
More often than not it is inherited.

In the case of some oligarchs it is stolen.

In the case of some bankers it is skimmed off the proceeds of crime. For example Malaysia.

How many hours of work do you think the Duke of Westminster put in to gain his enormous riches?
Click to expand...
I can't be bothered linking to articles, however I think broadly the consensus is the majority of billionaires gained their wealth through inheritance, sub that the majority earned their wealth through business growth etc.

If people are fortunate enough to be loaded, whether through inheritance or not, I don't like the premise of taxing them a lot more, a plan founded in jealousy where the majority of proceeds would go to the work-shy and lazy.
 
Mottie said:
Mrs Motties mum who has dementia, is paying £6240 a month to live in a care home, nearly £75k a year. I e got no problem with that but some of the residents in the same home are being fully funded by the local authority. With state and private pensions mrs Motties mum is on over £35k a year so will have to pay tax on that. I really think that those that can afford self-funding and living in a care home as a necessity, should be allowed some tax relief against the fees they are paying.
Click to expand...
I've said on here before, it's wrong plain and simple.

Two people, both earn the same all their working life. Person A is careful with their money and come old age has a decent property, savings, investments. Person B wasn't careful, they p1ssed it all away having a good time.

They could end up in adjoining care home rooms, one paying thousands a month, the other paying feck all.
 
JohnD said:
"Growing the economy" is a very effective way of making the rich, richer.

It is not an effective way of reducing the National Debt by making tax revenues larger than the cost of public services.

If you need, and want, to increase the tax take, do you think it is logical to try to squeeze money out of people who haven't got any?

Or out of people who have?
Click to expand...
Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
JohnD said:
In the UK, most wealth is held in the firm of pension funds and real estate.

If the nation needs public services, without increasing the national debt further towards unaffordable infinity, it needs to raise income. You can't get much by trying to tax the poor.

Billionaire oligarchs and nondom tax-dodgers like to buy palatial homes and country estates here.

An article in the FT commented:

"UK council tax is based on 1991 property valuations, grouped into eight price bands and paid by tenants. It is probably the world’s most unfair property tax: the poorest pay the highest tax as a percentage of property value and the richest the least. It is also unfair regionally. The tax revenue raised by a home in the top band is around £4,500 in Nottingham but just £1,060 in Westminster."

FT.com


Hmmmmm, room for improvement, I think.
Click to expand...
The valuations are outdated but thatch had the right idea, tax on the basis of the services provided not the value of the house. Plenty other ways to tax the super rich.
 
blup said:
Plenty other ways to tax the super rich.
Click to expand...

Do please tell us what they are.

I gather you think they are so wonderful that there is no need to reform the unfair system of property tax in this country, which has been designed so it bears more heavily on the poor than on the rich.

I may have mentioned before that property taxes have the huge advantage that you can't easily conceal your asset. Or move it offshore. Which the rich like to threaten they will do, whenever they hear a rumour that they might have to pay some tax.
 
JohnD said:
Do please tell us what they are.

I gather you think they are so wonderful that there is no need to reform the unfair system of property tax in this country, which has been designed so it bears more heavily on the poor than on the rich.

I may have mentioned before that property taxes have the huge advantage that you can't easily conceal your asset. Or move it offshore. Which the rich like to threaten they will do, whenever they hear a rumour that they might have to pay some tax.
Click to expand...
Increase basic rate tax as well then. Back to what it was under Major Ball.

Plenty of off shore tax loopholes to close as well.
 
motorbiking said:
So the thread title is really, how can we make people who earn more than us, pay more taxes to fund the things we don't want to pay for.

I prefer to relook at what we intend to spend the money on and address the issue of people who do not reach their earning potential. Just the other day we had a Builder discussing his income of around £60k working 3 short days a week. With a tax contribution of less than 12k. If he could be encouraged to work full time, his contribution would almost triple. There are many more of him than their are of those in the 0.5% income bracket.

Of course it's easy to pretend the country can lock in the top 0,1% of earners and squeeze them harder. The reality is you can't, they are highly mobile and it ends up being the top 10% who pay. Those who already pay 68% of the income tax.
Click to expand...

Wow, so much conflation.

From somebody who apparently thinks Monday to Friday means three days.
 
Last edited:
Brigadier said:
"Flogging a dead horse" or "Getting blood out of a stone", in layman's terms.
Click to expand...

Of course, what people like MBK always do is avoid mentioning the percentage of income that people end up paying to the government when you take into account all taxes and duties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top