Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Bottom to top: no basic issue with that despite its difficulty in being applied. But where’s the lower point? rA’s clarion call was simply ‘tax the rich’, let’s have some numbers

They don’t own the BBC, where most traditionalist go, and they don’t own the big social media platforms, where most non traditionalists go. I think the impact of print media these days is overstated

Imagine Amazon taking umbrage at a tax hike and withdrawing their services from uk. Amazon could handle it, not sure uk could in the short term as it’s become so dependant on it. Maybe one of the Chinese equivalents would step in…

It is not my clarion call though is it? You have just made that up to try and discredit me.

What I do have is the ability to recognise the truth in MA?s description of the faults that lie within the extremely unequal distribution of wealth throughout both this country and the world and what I also have is the ability to recognise the wisdom of Swale describing the correlation between the demand for the quality of services we all desire and the need for higher taxes.

In addition I believe that the biggest tax burden should fall on those who can most easily afford it which is, after all, the basis of most income tax systems.

What is interesting is that the former bean counters on here and those whose living may have included what was previously described (not by me) as specialising in tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax havens etc. appear now to have nothing constructive to say regarding how we rectify an ever growing problem. Think this is the third time I have asked AF. What would you do?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Speaking for this (not former) bean counter - addressing particularly the delulu schoolmarm - I have not commented because I have no solution. This is likely why it hasnt ever been addressed by anyone in power. Increase taxes overall and you lose votes, a few years later you lose power to those whose promise to reverse the increases: then of course they don't. Increase taxes for the "superrich" and they just bugger off somewhere else and your tax take falls rather than rises: its a balance of charging a sufficiently low rate to retain the tax payer in your system.

There are a few truisms in play here:

1) As Swale has already said - everyone wants the services paid for by tax but noone wants to be the one to pay the tax;
2) The superrich being asked to pay more dont share the sentiments of those demanding that they pay it - they can afford to buy all of the services they need themselves thankyou;
3) Those calling for more "social equality" are generally not those being asked to pay for it - although there are some like Bill Gates who are comfortable "deriching" (but in the way they want to - not being told how to by others)

in essence when youve got it you want to keep it, when you havent you want it from others. The belief in social equality diminishes as your bank balance increases maybe.

Anyway, thats why I cannot conceive a solution.

Looking at the MA / Dutch wealth tax is interesting. It seems as though assets in excess of a fairly modest sum are taxed every year that you are alive at rates between 1.44 and 5.88% every year, and then presumably hammered again on death with some form of inheritance tax? Am I reading this right, MA? Or is it just the increase in wealth from year 1 to year 2 that is taxed in year 2? If you owned the second home for 20 years you would have paid more in tax than the property was worth?

So if you have a second home as a generator of rental income, in 15 years you will have to pay pretty much its entire value to Revenue Netherlands? This must I guess be accompanied by some form of rent control to stop the tax in effect being passed on to the tenant.

Which brings me to my last point - however you initially levy a tax, it just flows down to the end user who wants the service provided by the "rich who can afford it". Maybe they can afford it, but that doesnt mean they want to, and they will pass it down the line wherever possible - meaning that those less able to pay will end up having to.

Essentially all taxes, however charged, end up as consumption based: from VAT which is directly driven by consumption to all other taxes which filter down to the consumer via the pricing of the goods or services that the rich/superrich supply. Similarity - good old Donald's tarrifs demonstrate this.

[Andy_Faber]

It is not my clarion call though is it? You have just made that up to try and discredit me.

Meanwhile, 27th June 7.21pm

maybe we should just tax the rich. .

But seriously regarding your comment

‘What is interesting is that the former bean counters on here and those whose living may have included what was previously described (not by me) as specialising in tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax havens etc. appear now to have nothing constructive to say regarding how we rectify an ever growing problem.’

1. ‘Bean counters’-Not sure I’ve ever insulted your profession, and it demonstrates your ignorance of the skills and specialisms of the finance profession.

2. Who’s declared as specialising in tax evasion?

3. You’ve asked three times, but I’ve repeatedly asked, in order to provide an answer, who are ‘the rich’ that you seek to target. MA has attempted an answer, he may be reading posts more thoroughly

[Geoff Parkstone]

MA is reading what those posts say; rA is reading what he wants them to say

[ramAnag]

MA is reading what those posts say; rA is reading what he wants them to say

It was MA who actually referred, in post 3644, to - well paid accountants who are experts in tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax havens, entering into agreements with governments that sees them pay little to no tax - so ask yourself who appears to be struggling to read and comprehend.

It was you who made some snide and meaningless crack about head teachers yesterday (3637) which you have since failed to explain hence the retaliatory comment about bean counters, although I accept that I should know better with you by now.

Maybe we should just tax the rich - hardly a clarion call is it AF? Clue is in the word maybe.

So, no answers then. No suggestions to improve the situation. The well off do not want to contribute to the well being of society as a whole and that, it appears, is all well and good with you. Surprised you don?t both change your names to Jack.

[MadAmster]

GP wrote QUOTE
1. Looking at the MA / Dutch wealth tax is interesting. It seems as though assets in excess of a fairly modest sum are taxed every year that you are alive at rates between 1.44 and 5.88% every year, and then presumably hammered again on death with some form of inheritance tax? Am I reading this right, MA? Or is it just the increase in wealth from year 1 to year 2 that is taxed in year 2? If you owned the second home for 20 years you would have paid more in tax than the property was worth?

So if you have a second home as a generator of rental income, in 15 years you will have to pay pretty much its entire value to Revenue Netherlands? This must I guess be accompanied by some form of rent control to stop the tax in effect being passed on to the tenant.

2. Which brings me to my last point - however you initially levy a tax, it just flows down to the end user who wants the service provided by the "rich who can afford it". Maybe they can afford it, but that doesnt mean they want to, and they will pass it down the line wherever possible - meaning that those less able to pay will end up having to.

Essentially all taxes, however charged, end up as consumption based: from VAT which is directly driven by consumption to all other taxes which filter down to the consumer via the pricing of the goods or services that the rich/superrich supply. Similarity - good old Donald's tarrifs demonstrate this.

UNQUOTE

1. I wrote the basics to give you an idea of what it looks like. There's a lot of in between calculations that bring you to the final figure. Wasn't going to write a 5000 word essay on it.

2. In simple terms you're right, however, things like this never are simple. I've written, in many a post on various threads in the forum that trickle down doesn't work. Increase tax on big business and multinationals, reduce it to the "poorest" 65 to 70%, maybe more. They will spend the extra, leading to higher demand for goods and services. That increases company revenue and therefore dividends and more tax to the Treasury. It will also help create jobs to fulfil the increased demand meaning more money being spent by the "new" workers and they'd be paying tax as well. Treasury benefits. Companies benefit. Shareholders benefit. The only "downside" is the hike in tax for the rich and the (multi) national companies is a downturn in income at the start but they very quickly get back to their lofty status once the extra being spent by the majority of folk kicks in. Government is happy as there's more tax coming in from all sides. The poorer 70% are happy that they have more money, can afford to buy more goods and services and are no longer struggling to get by.

I freely admit that there would still be a few who can't manage because of a lack of understanding of budgeting or a lack of control in what they spend their money on, luxuries rather than necessities but more folk keeping more of their income helps just about everybody. The rich bods simply aren't willing to undergo maybe a year of having slightly less in order to regain the status quo or better after that. Basically, they have most of it, they want the rest and aren't in the slightest bit interested in the "poor folk". Some may disagree with this but it's my opinion and I'm absolutely sure it's right on the mark.

[Geoff Parkstone]

............So, no answers then. No suggestions to improve the situation. The well off do not want to contribute to the well being of society as a whole and that, it appears, is all well and good with you. Surprised you don?t both change your names to Jack.

Did you read my post 3647 or was your head too far up your arse with name calling :-) ?

This explains quite clearly, I thought, as to why the situation is insoluble, but maybe you dont accept that: your choice, but dont have a go at me for not finding a solution you think must exist when I don't think there is one.

I reiterate - whoever you tax, there is a negative impact on the least well off who end up carrying a bigger share of the can than is appropriate. MA's point about the trickle down tax multiplier is well made, but this tends to apply more to tax cuts than tax increases. Im not 100% convinced increasing tax on the well to do has a similar multiplier effect. The multiplier efficiency depends on how the ultimate consumer spends extra wealth (or even dont spend but save) and on what, especially if its on imports or overseas holidays etc such that the incremental income exits the domestic system.

Anyway, you dont need my solution, youve already decided to force people to be socially aware via their wallets. Good luck with that and be careful of what you wish for and the consequences

[Andy_Faber]

Slightly off subject. Today’s treatment / scrutiny of Rachel Reeves. No matter what the issue, it’s not on imo. Maybe she’s having a breakdown, maybe a loved ones died, doesn’t matter. Have a heart.

[ramAnag]

Did you read my post 3647 or was your head too far up your arse with name calling :-) ?

This explains quite clearly, I thought, as to why the situation is insoluble, but maybe you dont accept that: your choice, but dont have a go at me for not finding a solution you think must exist when I don't think there is one.

I reiterate - whoever you tax, there is a negative impact on the least well off who end up carrying a bigger share of the can than is appropriate. MA's point about the trickle down tax multiplier is well made, but this tends to apply more to tax cuts than tax increases. Im not 100% convinced increasing tax on the well to do has a similar multiplier effect. The multiplier efficiency depends on how the ultimate consumer spends extra wealth (or even dont spend but save) and on what, especially if its on imports or overseas holidays etc such that the incremental income exits the domestic system.

Anyway, you dont need my solution, youve already decided to force people to be socially aware via their wallets. Good luck with that and be careful of what you wish for and the consequences

Hmmm, lovely turn of phrase.
Name calling? Lol. Given some of your recent comments about Liverpool supporters and sinking boats I hardly think a line about your complacent attitude being worthy of the name Jack really compares, do you?
You are always happy to dish it out, GP. Take any opportunity to make some derisory comment about my former career as a teacher, but when you get a bit back it seems to be toys out of the pram time.

Good job Aneurin Bevan had a better attitude than you to an insoluble problem in the forties and whatever happened to we are all in this together? Seems to have been an attitude that died with the end of the pandemic, if it ever really existed of course.

Whether you like it or not we are faced with a major societal problem GP. I thought your economic insight might provide some useful thoughts. Apparently not. Swale has provided one answer and I have to admit I cannot really see past it. We do need a solution but when people such as yourself won’t see further than the problem being insoluable because the genuinely rich might not like it or will just pass it on further down the line I do despair.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Slightly off subject. Today’s treatment / scrutiny of Rachel Reeves. No matter what the issue, it’s not on imo. Maybe she’s having a breakdown, maybe a loved ones died, doesn’t matter. Have a heart.

Starmer needs a fall guy for his latest U Turn and Truss like impact on the money and bond markets.

[ramAnag]

Starmer needs a fall guy for his latest U Turn and Truss like impact on the money and bond markets.

Truss like impact? After her budget the GBP was worth $1.03. Tonight it is worth $1.36.

[Andy_Faber]

Truss like impact? After her budget the GBP was worth $1.03. Tonight it is worth $1.36.

Which rather ridicules your soothsaying about the pound going through the floor and staying there due to Brexit. I do recall GP explaining the reason for the ebbs and flows of currency but you wouldn?t have it

[Geoff Parkstone]

Truss like impact? After her budget the GBP was worth $1.03. Tonight it is worth $1.36.

If you don't believe me suggest you read the financial times (today's on line - probably tomorrow in print) where it says that the drop in sovereign debt prices today was at one point sharper than the Truss moment but recovered slightly to just the worst since some time in 2022.

But they probably are right wing media so lying and wrong.

[ramAnag]

If you don't believe me suggest you read the financial times (today's on line - probably tomorrow in print) where it says that the drop in sovereign debt prices today was at one point sharper than the Truss moment but recovered slightly to just the worst since some time in 2022.

I would guess around 23/9/22, but who am I to argue with the rat-a-tat-tat twins?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I would guess around 23/9/22, but who am I to argue with the rat-a-tat-tat twins?

Why do you ask for thoughts from "the economists" - is it just to argue with or ridicule?

One more observation before I close the book on teaching the unteachable teacher: the gilts sell off which spiked sovereign borrowing costs in this way is a sign that the market liked Reeves' policy and reflects badly on the U Turn forced on the government. The expectation is that either (a) taxes will rise to offset the 5 billion new hole in the original Reeves budget or (b) state borrowing will rise to fill the hole. Neither options are well received in capital markets, nor I suspect in the labour heirarchy who need a fall guy.

Over and out