Why does any body need billions of £ or $ in offshore accounts? Does the world economy get affected when they basically remove half the oil from the engine? Why are they allowed to make billions yet seem to not pay as much tax as they should? If the richest 25 people in the world gave up just 10% of their fortunes away for good causes around the world what would the impact be? Why are they allowed to control Governments and the MSM?
The role of the Conservative Party is to ensure this state of affairs continues. For example, on your latter point, it has acted directly to parachute its representatives into the BBC and tried to do so with OFCOM. The role of the Labour Party is to try to grab a share for ordinary people, but it also, to a greater or lesser extent, chooses not to try to dismantle this system. It wouldn’t get elected to do so as things currently stand and the US would be waiting in the wings to put it in its place, red or blue.
It is economics 101 that, if you want to stimulate the economy, you give the money to the poorest in society. The poor don't save because they have to spend to survive. The multiplying effect of that spending increases economic activity across the board If you give the money to the well off they will just add it to their savings....which does very little to help the economy grow.
Sorry for the shaky typing as I'm weeping (tears of relief) as I write this: Sir Richard Branson thought 'we were going to lose everything' in pandemic
The UK taxation system is broken. It's far too complicated due to bits being altered, tagged on or refined year after year. It's too easy if you have enough money to spend some of it so save much more. Those that can't afford the advice don't get the savings. Until all income is assessed (earned and unearned) and taxed under the same system taxation will never be fair. Tax mitigation schemes will likely need to be canned and that will affect investment into things like startup companies, independent films etc. We also have the issue that the top earners are likely mobile. They can chose to earn and be taxed where they wish. We do need to have an advantageous system so that they chose to earn and pay tax here, better than them going elsewhere and likely taking the jobs they create with them. That being said, the top earners do pay the vast majority of tax taken and the UK government is making a very large percentage of tax compared to other periods in history, it's just not spending it very well. Taxing wealth is problematic. There's issues over how value is assessed, but also you need to consider how it was accrued. If assets are included in a wealth assesment then you need to condsider if any taxation on them is actually able to be paid. Example. You work hard for most of your life, have no debts and own your own house. It's market value is has tripled compared to the price paid, mainly due to decades of failed government policy. Since covid you have been forced to work part time, effectively semi retired. Luckilly you can afford to do this as the reduced salary covers expenses & bills. If suddenly your house is assessed as valuable and taxed accordingly. You do not have the funds or income to pay that tax unless you sell the house. Why should you have to pay a wedge of tax because you've worked hard, lived frugally and saved for your retirment, yet someone else on a similar career path who does not own their home or have a pension because they bought expensive cars, holidays and have a drug habit get away scot free? Wealth taxation is a blunt instrument that does not solve a complex problem. Taxation is not an easy issue to resolve, if it was, it would have been. No system will be perfect, but the world will trend towards what seems to work best.
Indexation would be a simple way to avoid the situation you describe above. Link house valuation to house price inflation. If you bought your house for £10k in 1968 and it's now worth £1m, apply house price inflation in that period to your original £10k and deduct it from your estate. Job done.
But if you're not earning and have no cash how can you pay? and why should you pay? you;ve not made money on the house because to sell it you'd need to spend a similar raised amount on a replacement (and the government will take a wedge in stamp duty to boot). Secondary houses and property businesses fair enough, profits are part of earnings and should be taxed as such, but taxation of things which have a perceived value is never ever going to be fair. It's a lazy policy driven partly by jealousy. The only fair taxation, is tax on earnings (all) and sales tax on spendings.
You wouldn't have to pay anything because your 'wealth' would be reduced by the indexation on your house.
Tax regulations and laws need to be worked on. The convoluted nature of it all and numerous loopholes are a lawyers paradise and a refuge for the morally repugnant.
Know your place you f**king plebs. Private school officials called Labour’s Bridget Phillipson ‘chippy’ in emails Exclusive: Comments about shadow education secretary revealed as lobby group steps up pushback against Labour plans Describing a Hertford College graduate as "chippy", wonderful stuff.
If you don’t have the cash, you should be able to defer the tax to when you die (in increased inheritance tax), plus some interest to the public purse. Although I’m not against incentivising people that live alone in 4 bedroom houses to downside for tax purposes, in a country with severely limited housing. No one’s kids should get excessively rich because their parents have bought a natural monopoly (land), whilst controlling the ability for more housing to be built (planning), having won the postcode lottery. People should clearly pay significantly more tax for having bought a house in London for 50k that’s worth 1 million, verses people that have bought a 30k house in Burnley that is now worth 200k. Paying tax as a proportion of wealth is fine, as long as you’re dead, as then no one can spend the money they have earnt.
Totally agree. The grey area for me is equity release. I think it is preferable for people to use the equity in their property to sustain them in old rather their offspring have it when they pass. However, as it's classed as a loan, you don't pay tax on equity release money. This is a bit of a loophole imho. It's basically unearned money that has just been acquired because of property price increases. It's not straightforward though. If people are drawing down on their equity to pay for nursing costs or other later life care then it's better than the State having to pay for it imho. I can totally understand how those that don't own property decry it as being unfair though.
What's to stop someone selling their £2m house that they originally bought for 10 pence and buying another £2m house before they turn their toes up - thereby minimising the equity they have in their main property at the time they keel over?
This still doesn't solve the fundemental problem. It's not fair to tax people who have saved yet let off people who have spent. Set inheritance tax at 20% in line with VAT (on all of th pot) so there's no advantage to saving/spending and I might be more for it but when it's at prohibitve percentages, at a relatively small threshold taking into account property prices in the south east, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.
All of the above might have merit if the rich did not have access to fiance teams to make sure they are not "caught". Property in trust or owned by corporations etc etc - the simpler a tax system is the easier it would be for the smart to find a loophole. The above schemes would do nicely to take money from fairly ordinary people who happen to live in an expensive area but would be unlikely to catch the real rich
People, especially in the latter stages of life, should be incentivised to spend. When they’re dead, they cannot spend. It’s better for the economy if they do spend and it’s better for them to personally benefit from the fruits of their labour. It benefits them little to be guilted into saving and passing on more money to their kids, who haven’t worked for it. In a hypothetical world, I’d massively reduce VAT, income tax NI, corporation tax and stamp duty and raise inheritance tax to near 100% over 250k (and remove loopholes like trusts). Plus do a complete refresh of land prices, and tax people significantly more based on their land’s value. As that is the natural monopoly that has benefitted people born at a certain time and a certain place more for no greater effort and no greater innovation. I know you’re not going to be convinced though!
I am - largely Inheritance keeps the world as it is. Only people with assets get to pass wealth to others. I suspect the vast majority of people can leave very little when they die - let alone pay for the funeral. But here you would face the wrath of the real ruling class - attack them and they go into destruct mode
So you get loads of broke pensioners relying on the state for their income and care. With an aging population that's the road to economic meltdown I'm afraid. We need to be sustainable. A person should fund themselves and pay a fair share to support those who can't through no fault of their own. We have to reward hard work and effort, not penalise it, otherwise no one will bother.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of inheritance tax being set at the same percentage of VAT. Either that or consider it as an addition to the beneficiary's UK income. Spread the taxation over say 5 years and then consider it along with their income. Inherit £100,000 cash, get £20K per year added to the figure used to calculate your tax rates for the next 5 years. Not sure if I would exempt primary residence or not. I'm tending to think yes. I would exempt heirlooms and physical goods unless sold within those 5 years and any profit made on those goods again considered as part of income tax rather than under CGT as currently.
I have a solution. I've mentioned it before. It solves all the problems mentioned above. Abandon the money system. Declare money worthless. Assign each person their home, school, doctor, hospital, clean water, enough food to eat, sewage and sanitation - all of the essentials of life. To everyone. Nobody left out. This will also allow us to tackle the incredible amount of waste, plan efficiently and with consideration for the planet, stop the vast amount of crime, do away with a mountain of useless jobs (advertising man, banker, stockbroker, financial adviser (sorry @hornmeister), till people, currency changers, paper shufflers, accountants and all the rest). With their labour now put towards producing the things we need, it'll be a 10 hour working week and retire at 40. That will go on decreasing as technology is developed to help and advance human kind rather than make money. As for the richies, well they can stay on their private island on their own, but nobody's going to serve you or wait on you hand and foot now. What for? Some of your worthless printed bits of paper? It wouldn't be too long before they'd be wanting to join the common society along with everyone else. Poverty solved. Wars solved. Healthcare solved. Climate change solved. Most crime solved. Exploitation solved. Inequality solved. And much more besides. But all absolutely impossible of course. Pie in the sky. Can't be done. Because people are "bad" and "greedy" they say. But I think it is the very same money that makes them that way. How beautiful the human existence could be without it.
If I am given everything I need and nothing more for extra effort, I am certainly not working for no gain and that will go for a lot of other people. If no one works, who produces the stuff people need to live? If it was as simple as you make out, a country would have done it by now. There no incentive to learn, to become a scientiest, doctor or an engineer for example because there's no reward for putting the hard work in. Therfore we drop dead of illnesses because there's no medicine, no one to administer it and no hospital to be treated in. Even trials of univeral basic income recognise that some will need to earn more. Agree with your comments on financial advisers. If we had a sensible taxation system there would be no need for them.
"Offshore banking business" by the Members was a hit in April 1979 . A song about the rich stashing their dough in offshore accounts and avoiding the tax man . As an aside. Which political party was in power in April 1979 and the months\years previous? So , in conclusion, which political spectrum is the best for the poor ? The right wing tax avoiders ? Or the left wing tax avoiders? Meet the new boss sang the Who . Same as the old boss . Anywho . I'll leave you mugs to moan about who is the worst and I shall get back down the pub . Cheers !
