[Finance] Tax Rates Going Forward

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

...and unfair. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.

I would suggest introducing a wealth tax to supplement our income tax.

I have posted on this before. A flat % tax (or increase) is fair. Making the rich pay a higher % is unfair. And I am a labour voter and nominal socialist.

Separately however a one off windfall tax on the rich might be justified. Do we have any rich, or are they all Cayman Island residents?

I don't believe in a threshold of any sort even at the low end (it just encourages deviousness). The way to deal with the low paid isn't to tax them less, it's to pay them more.

Anyway the whole country will be ****ed soon so most of this is academical (possibly Hamilton).

 

[maltaseagull]

Agree to a point, but you're introducing a brand new tax band here by turning the basic rate (currently 20% £12.5k to £50k) into two separate bands.

This could hit people earning £30k-£50k in your basic rate band 2 pretty hard, if they are committed to expensive mortgages etc.

You've also not taken into account the additional tax rate for over £150k! This is where most of our income tax comes from, currently at 45%... would you leave this as it is?

I would like to see lenders forced to reduce their rates as their cost of borrowing is virtually zero.

 

[vegster]

I'm paying about £90 Income Tax a month on my wages, I'd be happy to pay 10 or 11 % more of that. If you want to recover the money paid out the government has to have the balls, acumen and staff to claw back the Billions that leak out offshore annually.

 

[vegster]

I don't believe in a threshold of any sort even at the low end (it just encourages deviousness). The way to deal with the low paid isn't to tax them less, it's to pay them more.

I, for one, would love to have the chance to try this method of raising funds for our society. We will have to get a shift on though, I retire in about 7 years.

 

[Machiavelli]

Agree with the fella who was saying it will take a while to pay this off. A generation. Maybe more.

In terms of the economics, the young are (ok i'm being slightly simplistic) paying for the elderly to have longer lives. Which I don't object to. However the young are also sidled with the colossal costs that we'll have to pay to mitigate climate change over the coming 50 years, plus the costs of leaving the EU, which isn't exactly a project they wanted to go ahead with as an age cohort.

I'm not trying to stoke up inter generational discord, but I do want to make the point that I disagree with the majority of those who have posted so far who are automatically assuming that this money should be raised from Income Tax.

The money we need should be primarily collected from untaxed property wealth. It's not a perfect solution. Older people may have to move house when they don't really want to, or they may have to give less in their wills. However, it's completely unfair, to just shove the tab to, for example, a young person just graduating now, who will have had their life chances dramatically reduced by the immediate and necessary need to stop the economy to protect the elderly.

Best post of the thread. We need to collect taxes and close loopholes to prevent MNCs taking the p!ss, and work on tax havens. That will require international -- or, at least, postnational -- cooperation and, of course, we've decided to take a step away from that.
But then we need to tax assets, and try to claw back a higher proportion from taxing assets rather than taxing labour, because it's labour that will be what drags us out from this enormous hole we've plunged into. Then we need to tax environmentally-damaging consumption.
The one thing we can't do is to cut back on public services. They've been cut to the bone, and we are reaping the damage from that currently, especially in terms of social care, but also with the NHS which has experienced growing demand (c4%pa) yet fairly stagnant supply for a decade now. Beyond the NHS, the only area of public spending that carves up a massive amount is pensions. There's nowhere else to cut.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I would have a special tax of 95% for Journalists and Tv presenters like Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid.

Not enough for the former especially

 

[NooBHA]

Agree totally.

A tax rate should never take away the majority of an income or gain, much of the incentive for doing things would be lost, once into that tax bracket.

Someone paying 45% tax is fair enough. After all, they're the honest people declaring large income. An easy target.

Instead the country (in cahoots with other nations) needs to tackle the multinationals ripping this country off by paying negligible Corporation Tax on huge revenues.

I think we always disagree on this issue.

There are ways round this.

Multi Nationals non UK Resident. You can tax a percentage of Global Profits based on either UK "point of sale receipts" OR based on commercial venues trading in the UK. Companies like Starbucks ain't gonna close all their UK streams of income just because you tax them more.

Individuals who leave and retain a property in the UK property. Levy a Vacant Property Tax on properties vacant more than 6 months based on Value. If they can afford to live anywhere around the World they will be high value properties. Charge them a 20% Vacancy Tax and it won't be quite as attractive to avoid there UK Taxes.

And if the decide to sell their property the Treasury will get SDLT from the purchaser and they won't be getting the benefits of Capital Value increases.

Loads of ways of closing Tax Avoidance. Successive Governments just haven't had the appetite for them. Corbyn did and that's why many wealthy people and businesses conspired against him getting elected.

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1260520322916388864[/TWEET]

 

[wellquickwoody]

if we go down the tax increase path, a simple 2.5% across existing bands would be simpler.

I would guess that a higher figure may be necessary. Maybe 5% on average, less for the lowest paid but more for higher earners. Time will tell.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Whatever happens they'll **** us

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

Why ‘they’? Do you not think tax rises will be necessary for everyone?

 

[Weststander]

I think we always disagree on this issue.

There are ways round this.

Multi Nationals non UK Resident. You can tax a percentage of Global Profits based on either UK "point of sale receipts" OR based on commercial venues trading in the UK. Companies like Starbucks ain't gonna close all their UK streams of income just because you tax them more.

Individuals who leave and retain a property in the UK property. Levy a Vacant Property Tax on properties vacant more than 6 months based on Value. If they can afford to live anywhere around the World they will be high value properties. Charge them a 20% Vacancy Tax and it won't be quite as attractive to avoid there UK Taxes.

And if the decide to sell their property the Treasury will get SDLT from the purchaser and they won't be getting the benefits of Capital Value increases.

Loads of ways of closing Tax Avoidance. Successive Governments just haven't had the appetite for them. Corbyn did and that's why many wealthy people and businesses conspired against him getting elected.

Dealing with the contentious bit of Corbyn first, probably like you I did truly look at their tax elements of the last manifesto and also the documents by the architect behind it all (non Lansman), clearly a Marxist. That’s not an insult, he was. This guy went way beyond the bits we’re touching on here, he was emphatic about anyone having land (agricultural or residential) being taxed annually on its paper value regardless of whether they’re cash poor, and that residential/agricultural landowners should not gain when their land becomes available for housing. Instead compulsorily bought at arable land values, in effect gifting its new enhanced value to the nation. For many reasons I totally disagree with that form of command economy, the appropriation of someone’s assets, their rights. We could start a whole new debate here raking up the ins and outs of a Corbyn government, I’d rather not talk about a scenario that will never happen. I’m not anti Labour, I voted for Blair (yes I know Corbynistas on NSC despise him ... now) and I have faith that Starmer will be far more centrist that Corbyn. Let’s face it Starmer took just days to boot out all the hopeless ‘young guns‘ who imho had led a bitter class war agenda.

On to the positive bit.

I agree with your tax proposals. I want the multinationals taxed as much as you do. My logical comment has always been that Starbucks, Amazon, Dell and Apple won’t cut off their noses, by walking from the UK. My fear is that Trump and the American powers that be, are very aggressive about protecting their companies. If we make a unilateral move, there’ll be reprisals against Jaguar/Land Rover for example who’ll in effect be tariffed out of the US market. Very spiteful, very hypocritical, but it works. Huge numbers of UK jobs at stake.



Offshore havens for individuals/trusts etc - I’d love one day to see the demise of ALL tax havens. You would know, I do, that this is not just a British thing in any shape of form. When the Lichtenstein bank and Panama legal records were laid bare, they revealed huge numbers of very powerful, rich (and some celeb) Germans and French tax evaders for example.

 

[NooBHA]

Dealing with the contentious bit of Corbyn first, probably like you I did truly look at their tax elements of the last manifesto and also the documents by the architect behind it all (non Lansman), clearly a Marxist. That’s not an insult, he was. This guy went way beyond the bits we’re touching on here, he was emphatic about anyone having land (agricultural or residential) being taxed annually on its paper value regardless of whether they’re cash poor, and that residential/agricultural landowners should not gain when their land becomes available for housing. Instead compulsorily bought at arable land values, in effect gifting its new enhanced value to the nation. For many reasons I totally disagree with that form of command economy, the appropriation of someone’s assets, their rights. We could start a whole new debate here raking up the ins and outs of a Corbyn government, I’d rather not talk about a scenario that will never happen. I’m not anti Labour, I voted for Blair (yes I know Corbynistas on NSC despise him ... now) and I have faith that Starmer will be far more centrist that Corbyn. Let’s face it Starmer took just days to boot out all the hopeless ‘young guns‘ who imho had led a bitter class war agenda.

On to the positive bit.

I agree with your tax proposals. I want the multinationals taxed as much as you do. My logical comment has always been that Starbucks, Amazon, Dell and Apple won’t cut off their noses, by walking from the UK. My fear is that Trump and the American powers that be, are very aggressive about protecting their companies. If we make a unilateral move, there’ll be reprisals against Jaguar/Land Rover for example who’ll in effect be tariffed out of the US market. Very spiteful, very hypocritical, but it works. Huge numbers of UK jobs at stake.

View attachment 123568

Offshore havens for individuals/trusts etc - I’d love one day to see the demise of ALL tax havens. You would know, I do, that this is not just a British thing in any shape of form. When the Lichtenstein bank and Panama legal records were laid bare, they revealed huge numbers of very powerful, rich (and some celeb) Germans and French tax evaders for example.

Need to respond to this tomorrow. Got half way through a long reply and phone crashed. F#ckin hate when that happens.

I agree with a lot of your synopsis but not all obviously.

Easier to respond when I get on to my main PC

 

[GT49er]

if we go down the tax increase path, a simple 2.5% across existing bands would be simpler.

. and would raise more revenue than just hiking up the top rate.

 

[GT49er]

I think we always disagree on this issue.

There are ways round this.

Multi Nationals non UK Resident. You can tax a percentage of Global Profits based on either UK "point of sale receipts" OR based on commercial venues trading in the UK. Companies like Starbucks ain't gonna close all their UK streams of income just because you tax them more.

Individuals who leave and retain a property in the UK property. Levy a Vacant Property Tax on properties vacant more than 6 months based on Value. If they can afford to live anywhere around the World they will be high value properties. Charge them a 20% Vacancy Tax and it won't be quite as attractive to avoid there UK Taxes.

And if the decide to sell their property the Treasury will get SDLT from the purchaser and they won't be getting the benefits of Capital Value increases.

Loads of ways of closing Tax Avoidance. Successive Governments just haven't had the appetite for them. Corbyn did and that's why many wealthy people and businesses conspired against him getting elected.

Need to find better ways of taxing multi-nationals for sure.

Never mind a vacant property tax, though - there will be lawyers and tax advisers who will be able to prove it isn't vacant! Make it simpler - a universal, graduated property tax. The tax on a house less tan £250K would be pretty small, but once they get passed a million quid the rates would go up quite sharply.

The beauty of this idea is in its simplicity (and unavoidability). The tax would be levelled on the property, regardless of who owned it. Whether it was a second home, a UK base for a Brit living abroad to avoid paying tax, a Russian oligarch, a Saudi Prince or a dodgy trust based in the Seychelles, the property is in the UK, and the tax must be paid, regardless of who owns it. No way out of paying - if you want to keep the ownership of the property, pay the tax!

Failure to pay the tax, and the property becomes the property of the Government, who can sell it to boost revenue, or knock it down and use the site for affordable social housing (dare I suggest Council Housing?)

 

[happypig]

Need to find better ways of taxing multi-nationals for sure.

Never mind a vacant property tax, though - there will be lawyers and tax advisers who will be able to prove it isn't vacant! Make it simpler - a universal, graduated property tax. The tax on a house less tan £250K would be pretty small, but once they get passed a million quid the rates would go up quite sharply.

The beauty of this idea is in its simplicity (and unavoidability). The tax would be levelled on the property, regardless of who owned it. Whether it was a second home, a UK base for a Brit living abroad to avoid paying tax, a Russian oligarch, a Saudi Prince or a dodgy trust based in the Seychelles, the property is in the UK, and the tax must be paid, regardless of who owns it. No way out of paying - if you want to keep the ownership of the property, pay the tax!

Failure to pay the tax, and the property becomes the property of the Government, who can sell it to boost revenue, or knock it down and use the site for affordable social housing (dare I suggest Council Housing?)

The problem with that is that property prices vary enormously around the country, a friend of mine has a house similar to mine in Northumberland but it's worth half what mine is, another friend lives in north London and has a smaller house worth three times what mine is (and, before I retired, both were on exactly the same money as me).

 

[GT49er]

The problem with that is that property prices vary enormously around the country, a friend of mine has a house similar to mine in Northumberland but it's worth half what mine is, another friend lives in north London and has a smaller house worth three times what mine is (and, before I retired, both were on exactly the same money as me).

Winners and losers. Always will be - but house prices will probably be affected by Covid-19, and then if the tax makes buying a property in Central London, or another expensive part of the country less attractive, then the pressure for prices there to go up and up will be reduced, which can't be a bad thing.

 

[blue-shifted]

Of course, if we stopped using these companies they may go away. Oh, doorbell. Delivery driver.

Why not just ask the Royal Mint to print out a few billion extra £50 notes and transfer them into the Bank of England. That's what they do in some South African countries I'm sure.

Are you suggesting that these companies will only start to pay a fair amount of tax when people, like you and I, refuse to do business with them on principle?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

[TWEET]1260520322916388864[/TWEET]

That chart and the information in it deserves far more attention.

I have often wondered how France and Germany, while being far from Utopia, manage to provide so much more in the way of higher quality public services and education for people at low costs.

 

[blue-shifted]

How come the countries that already have a wealth tax don't have this issue? Namely Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway amongst others. Germany, France, Spain and Belgium also have some degree of a wealth tax.

We are seriously lagging behind in this regard, due to our absolute TERROR of the perpetual threats of the wealthy packing up their bags.

Well said Mustafa. Far too many people willing to repeat the propaganda of the super-rich.

 

[blue-shifted]

Re the multinationals, the way business pays tax needs to be totally overhauled. It's ridiculous and grotesquely unfair, that I have to pay 25% more in an independent coffee shop, that I do in the Starbucks next door, because the independent shop pays tax.

The tax needs to be on the purchase price of any given item, not the overall profit of the organisation.

Who knows, our high streets might not be decimated after all if going to a shop, when safe to do so, is the same price as Amazon.