O/T Trussed in Leader gone

[John2]

As for a wealth tax, how would that work in respect of, say, a farmer who is technically wealthy because of the value of the land he owns and who pays the taxes due on the income he earns? Are we going to make him sell part of his farm to raise money to pay a wealth tax? How about a business owner who has built his business up through hard work and reinvesting the profis from its operation? He might be technically wealthy, but with no other real assets. Should he be required to sell part of his business to raise money to pay his wealth tax? If so, what is the incentive to build businesses?

"Technically" wealthy? If a farmer has a farm worth £30m, then yes, let them sell part of it. Let's not pretend they are poor.

A wealth tax on the super-rich should have a generous threshold, but above that, they'll get to decide which assets to sell. There can also be exceptions for if someone has grown a large business and no other assets beyond an exemption for a primary residence etc. The government can be as creative as it likes as long as the rules are applied to everyone the same. It would create a free market and should see some selling pressure on the traditionally hoarded assets the super-rich have relied upon to accumulate wealth, like London properties becoming more affordable.

[howdydoo]

@ Howdy. I'm not convinced that local authorities or central government spending money to acquire a portfolio of derelict properties is a solution to anything very much. Indeed, central goverment already owns plenty via the MoD. In many cases the land will be derelict for a reason such as having no viable development options.

I'm talking housing. Houses in residential areas that are empty and in a state of disrepair. Either force owners to make them habitable and or take possession at a rock bottom price and upgrade them. Sell them off at a profit. Could pay for itself.

Might not be much but it's something.

[KerrAvon]

"Technically" wealthy? If a farmer has a farm worth £30m, then yes, let them sell part of it. Let's not pretend they are poor.

A wealth tax on the super-rich should have a generous threshold, but above that, they'll get to decide which assets to sell. There can also be exceptions for if someone has grown a large business and no other assets beyond an exemption for a primary residence etc. The government can be as creative as it likes as long as the rules are applied to everyone the same. It would create a free market and should see some selling pressure on the traditionally hoarded assets the super-rich have relied upon to accumulate wealth, like London properties becoming more affordable.

I suspect that much of the benefit from your wealth tax will be dissipated in lawyer and accountant's fees and the army of civil servants that will be needed to administer the 'creative' (for which read 'complicated') system that you have in mind

I see that you are talking about a generous threshold. You are going to have the same problem that Labour unwittingly revealed with their 'For the many not the few' slogan. Set the threshold too high and there will be so few captured as to make the exercise a token affair (and - let's be honest - it is a token policy - it sounds good and that's about it).

How many times are you going to adjust the threshold downwards by the way? When all the £30 million+ farms have been broken up into smaller less efficient units or have had land hived off into land banks to speculate upon future development possibilties you are going to be out of ways to raise cash aren't you? In other words what are you planning to do when everyone has been reduced to the level of wealth that you deem acceptable?

By the way, it is you who decides which farm workers to make redundant? Are you going to do that or is that down to the famer as well?

[John2]

I suspect that much of the benefit from your wealth tax will be dissipated in lawyer and accountant's fees and the army of civil servants that will be needed to administer the 'creative' (for which read 'complicated') system that you have in mind

I see that you are talking about a generous threshold. You are going to have the same problem that Labour unwittingly revealed with their 'For the many not the few' slogan. Set the threshold too high and there will be so few captured as to make the exercise a token affair (and - let's be honest - it is a token policy - it sounds good and that's about it).

How many times are you going to adjust the threshold downwards by the way? When all the £30 million+ farms have been broken up into smaller less efficient units or have had land hived off into land banks to speculate upon future development possibilties you are going to be out of ways to raise cash aren't you? In other words what are you planning to do when everyone has been reduced to the level of wealth that you deem acceptable?

By the way, it is you who decides which farm workers to make redundant? Are you going to do that or is that down to the famer as well?

Why did you overlook my exception for people whose wealth exists in one large business activity like a farm?

I don't think it's not that complicated either. I don't agree at all that such a high amount of the tax would be dissipated into costs, but even if it is, the whole point is for the wealth to distribute more evenly into the economy, so surely it serves the same purpose albeit indirectly?

[howdydoo]

Meanwhile one bloke buys Twitter for $44 billion.

[ragingpup]

@raging. The top 10% of earners in the UK are already responsible for about 60% of the income tax take, with the top 1% of earners paying about 30%. How much more would you take and how much more do you think they would take before choosing to move to countries with lower taxes?

As for a wealth tax, how would that work in respect of, say, a farmer who is technically wealthy because of the value of the land he owns and who pays the taxes due on the income he earns? Are we going to make him sell part of his farm to raise money to pay a wealth tax? How about a business owner who has built his business up through hard work and reinvesting the profis from its operation? He might be technically wealthy, but with no other real assets. Should he be required to sell part of his business to raise money to pay his wealth tax? If so, what is the incentive to build businesses?

@ Howdy. I'm not convinced that local authorities or central government spending money to acquire a portfolio of derelict properties is a solution to anything very much. Indeed, central goverment already owns plenty via the MoD. In many cases the land will be derelict for a reason such as having no viable developent options.

Mervyn King called it correctly last week; we can have either European levels of spending or American levels of taxation, but we can't have both in the way that we have been trying to for the last 50 years or so. For my part, having high quality education, healthcare and transport links all ultimately contribute to the ability of the country to create wealth, but have to be paid for. Simples

I made the point of the difficulty of both imposing such a wealth tax and the movability of wealth around the world in earlier post to shank. I would agree that any such increase would have to be competitive with other economies. As discussed with howdy my gut instinct as a complete non expert is that if we are to improve on the services you mention from where we are now, I think those that can afford to pay more should progressively do so, and that would include myself albeit not very much in the high tax band. But when labour suggested this, I know many of my friends/family that it would have affected hugely resisted for the reasons howdy said. This might suggest that howdy's idea of hitting the super wealthy might be more popular with voters. To what extent would it bring in meaningful revenue I honestly don't know but there is unimaginable wealth gaps that are getting bigger and bigger as the majority are getting more stretched. I think that a progressive tax is the only option but the mechanics are for bigger brains than mine.

What other potential solutions would you like to see in order to obtain the good quality services such as health, education qaboos transport? I can't think of any other way of doing it!

[Redshank]

Come on then. Your advice to help.

Sorry Crash, only just spotted this (I don't camp out on this board I'm afraid)

No easy answer and that's the problem in today's society. Everybody wants things now, that's why populist poilticians have become so popular - they offer easy answers to difficult questions.

I've said before, there has to be a redistribution of wealth. My suggestions?...

Housing... build affordable homes. The government are going backwards on this and there's no onus on builders to do it. Private rents rising at the fastst rate on record (re Rightmove). Stop foreign investment companies buying up property for starters.

A proper living wage. As it is, working people need benefits to survive. You could say that the real benefit cheats are the companies forcing their staff onto benefits. Same with rent. 10% of the total welfare budget goes on rent to landlords.

Nationalise public utilities. I know it's a big ask but until it's on the agenda it will never happen. Too much public money chucked away supporting privatised industry (railways etc)... effectively into the hands of the super-rich. All they do is maintain profits for shareholders and big bonuses for the CEOs etc at the expense of maintaining a service. Look at the Water Industry, it's in the worst state it's ever been in. Rivers and beaches are a national disgrace. Profit over service every time, it has to stop and ain't going to improve until it does.

Same with NHS. It's being privatised through the back door. My Mrs works for the NHS and she says it's disgusting how much the surgery syphons off as bonus (profit!) for the practice owners (the doctors). That's all public money. It will be happening all through the NHS. It's a waste of time chucking more money at it, it just further lines the pockets of the wealthy. I've heard private health insurance mentioned on BBC Radio 4 more times in the last 6 months then in the last 6 years. It's already being dripped into the nations subconscious. The USA spend more per head on health than practically any other country... but they have one of the poorest paybacks on that investment. You don't have to be Einstein to work out where all that wealth is going.

A fair tax system.

A fair electoral system with proper accountability.

None of this stuff will happen because folk want an instant fix... and they have the press (owned by billionaires!) in their ear all the time.
We're Foo ked mate!

Other than that....Excercise, it takes your mind off sh;t

[ragingpup]

Therein lies your problem. All long winded and full of it. You do realise the people you want to tax more have mortgages, loans, utility bills etc. something they, on average, give up 40+ hours a week for.

I know you’re in that bracket but you’re not 30 years old either. Is there two incomes in your household? You just want more of the same but it’s the right thing to do because you read it in the Guardian. So that makes you better than a bloke that reads the Sun. Blah, blah, blah.

If any party wants to get the British public to ‘buy in’ to a proper wealth tax all they have to do is to stop tip toeing around immigration.

With that, don’t pigeon hole me as you tend to do.

Just telling it, like it is. Does the Express? If so, I’ll drop them a mail.

I’ll give you one thing we could start with.

The government could start with compulsory purchase or possession of all derelict property. There’s plenty of it.


PS. I’m not worse off under Brexit. Sorry.

If people don't want to be pigeon holed as Sun readers, they could always stop repeating the Sun's obsessive scapegoat lines almost word for word.

From my knowledge of the guardian, you'll have some columnists that think that wealth taxes are the way forward, others that argue that progressive tax is the way and others that want to cut income tax throughout. I've no idea what the guardian editorial line would be, from what I've seen it seems to be more weighted towards your idea of greater taxes on the rich. But I read/watch all kinds of contrasting stuff, from GB news to novara media. Hence I'm less likely to spurt an editorial line myself and I can recognise a reader of different sources from their repeated spouting, if that's what they chose to do. I don't have you pigeon holed as a Sun reader or an express reader. But I do have you pigeon holed.

[Redshank]

If people don't want to be pigeon holed as Sun readers, they could always stop repeating the Sun's obsessive scapegoat lines almost word for word.

From my knowledge of the guardian, you'll have some columnists that think that wealth taxes are the way forward, others that argue that progressive tax is the way and others that want to cut income tax throughout. I've no idea what the guardian editorial line would be, from what I've seen it seems to be more weighted towards your idea of greater taxes on the rich. But I read/watch all kinds of contrasting stuff, from GB news to novara media. Hence I'm less likely to spurt an editorial line myself and I can recognise a reader of different sources from their repeated spouting, if that's what they chose to do. I don't have you pigeon holed as a Sun reader or an express reader. But I do have you pigeon holed.

One of my mates swears by GB news. We have some interesting spats in the pub!
I give it a go every now and again but make sure my foam brick is close at hand
The gold bullion trader adverts in particular make me smile as it gives a nice indication of what type are watching.

[howdydoo]

If people don't want to be pigeon holed as Sun readers, they could always stop repeating the Sun's obsessive scapegoat lines almost word for word.

From my knowledge of the guardian, you'll have some columnists that think that wealth taxes are the way forward, others that argue that progressive tax is the way and others that want to cut income tax throughout. I've no idea what the guardian editorial line would be, from what I've seen it seems to be more weighted towards your idea of greater taxes on the rich. But I read/watch all kinds of contrasting stuff, from GB news to novara media. Hence I'm less likely to spurt an editorial line myself and I can recognise a reader of different sources from their repeated spouting, if that's what they chose to do. I don't have you pigeon holed as a Sun reader or an express reader. But I do have you pigeon holed.

I'm well aware of that. Water off a ducks back.

You're not going to change the hearts and minds of individuals by constantly sniping at them and telling them they can't think for themselves. Many have grafted hard and contributed throughout their lives. Helped fund your education.

You can't deride everyone because they don't have the same IQ as you. The media certainly is a massive influence but I think you're extremely dismissive of people's own life experiences. You don't know what's happened to them or what's contributed to their mindset. They want their life's to be better and they want to look after their families.

They have the same number of votes as you do. You constantly saying you form your opinion from different sources is poppycock. Your mind's made up. Your views don't change.

It's let us all pay more because we can afford it. Well if I'm earning more than you, I'm already paying more than you and I don't want to pay more. I think too much of it goes to waste. You give more and catch up if you want. I'd rather give my surplus cash to help my own flesh and blood. Yet that makes me nasty, even though I contribute 10x more than you do.

I'll say it. Anyone who has made their own wealth and is paying full UK tax are not the people who should be targeted. I don't care who they are. If you don't think it's enough get a better job and do your bit. I've done my bit and get taxed accordingly. Every penny is paid to the HMRC.

Now if we're looking at the aristocracy who have inherited wealth through the ages, I have a different view. Tax dodgers, same view. Benefit fraudsters, same view. Overspending and waste, same view. I could go on and on. Get your politicians to sort that out instead of doing the usual. People are sick of it.

Just over half of adults pay income tax in this country. The burden can't be theirs and theirs only. Round in circles we go.