Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

Not justifying anything with that particular comment. Just pointing out a benefit we all share in the hard-earned, legally acquired and properly taxed assets of one of 'the rich'. I didn't see anyone handing in their season ticket to preserve their social ethics when he took over, nor, I guess, will I see it if he sells up to a sovereign wealth fund of a country with a shocking human rights record.

WTF are you on about? MA RA and myself said quite clearly that the issue isn't people accumulating wealth by legitimate means, paying their taxes and treating their employees fairly, which by all accounts Clowes does. So whats the social ethics that would be preserved?

On the other hand when you have people like Dyson, Ratcliffe and Bamford who are so patriotic, they live abroad and have convoluted arrangements to avoid paying a penny more tax than they have to, that's a different scenario.

I rally can't see Clowes selling up to an ethically dodgy person or organisation to be honest. But certainly my interest in Derby would cease if that did happen. Obviously most fans wouldn't give a stuff, but then obviously there are fans who are racist, bigoted and have right wing tendencies (even though they claim otherwise).

[swaledale]

Strange response. So you justify the current system of inequality on the basis of one wealthy person saving Derby County.

I can understand that there may be much to admire about Mr. Clowes but, while you are critical of the alleged naivety and idealism of others, what is your answer to the social inequality MA refers to?

Careful RA, you will blow his mind trying to answer that one!

[ramAnag]

Not justifying anything with that particular comment. Just pointing out a benefit we all share in the hard-earned, legally acquired and properly taxed assets of one of 'the rich'. I didn't see anyone handing in their season ticket to preserve their social ethics when he took over, nor, I guess, will I see it if he sells up to a sovereign wealth fund of a country with a shocking human rights record.

Strange, curious and certainly evasive. You introduced David Clowes and football club ownership into the argument but the question was, what would you do about the issues MA raised i.e. the rapidly widening gap between rich and poor and, I imagine, the fact that we are now in a situation where approaching half of the worlds wealth is owned by the richest 1% of people?
Maybe that is all fine by you. If it is, say so, because talking about legally acquired properly taxed assets and preserving social ethics is a GP sized red herring.

[MadAmster]

The 1% (and the multinationals) have well paid accountants who are experts in tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax havens, entering into agreements with government that sees them pay little to no tax. I have no way of checking but there are those spouting things like Amazon and other mutlis paying around 1% on their profits. If that's true then I'm all for making them pay the full amount of Corporation Tax or whatever it's called these days.

The 5 expat media magnates who own almost all UK media outlets should be paying full UK tax IMO. The Tax Laws need changing to prevent this abuse.

With regard to the DCFC situation, the club is now owned by Clowes Developments, not David personally. IIRC, he's not the only "owner" of Clowes Developments. Any losses he plugs at the club can be used as a tax write off with his "main" business. Nothing amiss there.

If Musk was a UK resident, I'm perfectly sure he could afford and not even notice a 2% to 5% wealth tax on anything over 20M GBP. According to AI...

A 5% wealth tax on individuals in the UK with net wealth exceeding ?20 million could potentially raise a significant amount of revenue, but estimates vary. Some analyses suggest it could generate around ?22 billion annually. However, other estimates are lower, with some proposing that a 2% wealth tax on assets exceeding ?10 million could raise around ?24 billion annually according to The Telegraph. The exact amount would depend on the definition of net wealth and how the tax is structured.

Now, IMO, and I know others may well disagree, those "falling foul" of such a wealth tax wouldn't notice the small hole in their finances. A similar "hike" on, say, income tax would see the poorest 60% struggling to make ends meet.

In NL we have a wealth tax which starts at "worth" above 57684 Euro, twice that for a couple. This is exclusive of the value of your primary home. Rates vary according to what your various bits of worth actually are. Money in a savings account gets taxed at 1.44%. Stocks, shares, 2nd and further homes are taxed at 5.88%. Despite this, Dutch income tax is one of the highest in the EU.

[Andy_Faber]

. I have no way of checking but there are those spouting things like Amazon and other mutlis paying around 1% on their profits. If that's true then I'm all for making them pay the full amount of Corporation Tax or whatever it's called these days.

The 5 expat media magnates who own almost all UK media outlets should be paying full UK tax IMO. The Tax Laws need changing to prevent this abuse.

A 5% wealth wealth tax


.

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…

[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.