[Finance] Tax Rates Going Forward

[Weststander]

Deep Breath

I agree with you that there is not too much point spending time going over the Corbyn Manifesto - The Electorate didn't have the Appetite for Socialist Policies. Even though by Default we now have them due to the Covid-19 Outbreak
All the people screaming we can't afford a Robust Welfare System. Some of them are now not only relying on the Welfare System are now coming out with phrases like ''How can we be expected to live on that amount of money'' Karma works in mysterious ways.

I didn't look into the origins of who drafted Labour Party Manifesto so your Assessment of it I have to bow to your greater understanding of it's origins. That said, only about 10% of Manifesto Pledges ever make it to Royal Assent Legislation. And that relates to every Government.

Like you I don't Advocate Land Grabs or Property Grabs - And in the UK whilst we still have The House of Lords it would never happen so there was never any fear of that coming to Fruition, so that was ill thought out to put such a scary piece of Policy in the Manifesto. It alienates too much of the Electorate.

On to your fear Trump and the US;

That is a Legitimate fear - Someone as reckless as Trump could and would do such a thing and not having the protection of being in a larger group of countries embodied in the EU - The UK would be more vulnerable to a Vindictive Administration like a Donald Trump led US Government. He won't be at the helm forever. Hopefully he will lose the US Election and that will leave the UK with a more predictable and less volatile US Administration to deal with moving forward.

The Tax offshore havens. They will never be fully eradicated ; however one of the ones you mention in Lichtenstein. They for the most part along with Switzerland have been brought '' to heel'' and entered into DTA's now. They had to or they would have been ostracised by the EU when negotiating Trade Deals and free movement regulations.

The problems in relation to Tax havens now lies for the most part with the Foreign Territories of the Old Colonial Countries like The Netherlands, France, Spain, UK and Portugal. - Places like the Dutch Antilles and British Virgin Islands for example need to be more accountable. Britain and The Netherlands are not doing enough to make them Accountable and Transparent.

Wealthy Companies are being allowed to have Trading Addresses in these Territories, when their real Trading Address and Registered Offices are in fact the UK and The Netherlands. These small Territories are a Law unto themselves in terms of releasing information and Countries like the UK and NL don't hold them to account like they should or could do by restricting Trade.

Money Laundering Procedures are not Robust enough and there is too much ''lip service to ML Procedures as opposed to following up on the actual ML Regulations which are constantly flouted all over the World. We are never going to get total transparency but we should be doing better.

Tax Legislation is often Done in Isolation. When a Law is drawn up. The Architects of any Legislation should be anticipating the next moves of the organisations that this Legislation is designed to capture in terms of Tax Revenue Collection. This doesn't happen often enough and that is why we will be forever playing catch up.

It also annoys me how easy it is for a company to move its Franchises around the EU Countries every time a country offers a Tax Break. Malta being the perfect example of this - They offered loads of tax breaks in recent years. Companies move there and then move on when the tax breaks are removed.

That last statement won't go down well with Brexiteers who think that the EU should have no control over any Nation within it. But when it comes to Taxation, there has to be some sort of cohesiveness - Many will disagree and that is their prerogative but if you want tackle Tax Evasion by large Multi Nationals, it is the only way it can be done effectively.

I agree with everything you say, with a different view on Brexit. I was a Remainer, but I always accepted the vote. That does leave us less able to take Trump so on, but then EU does too, for similar reasons I guess .... he could really, really hurt Germany for example (Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Bosch, Miele, Siemens).

My idealistic pipe dream .... to see the end of all tax havens. Full stop.

Money laundering, yes you’re spot on. Illegally gained assets across the world are legitimised, financial institutions in a competitive world accepting the business, states welcoming incoming investment cash flows.

 

[Weststander]

I've given you a thumbs up with a condition. Brownfield sites should be fully developed first before even any consideration of greenfield sites. I say that as someone who is bitterly opposed to the development of Benfield Valley - if that makes me a NIMBY so be it.

Couldn’t agree more. First, all the waste land we see beside our railway lines in urban areas, old industrial estates where those units are no longer en vogue, having to build a little higher. I don’t want the countryside bulldozed. But when the genie was let out of the bottle and our population was allowed to rise 9 million since 1997, we must now house the people.

Do you travel around Sussex by road ever, away from this conurbation? Towns/suburbs such as Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath, Horsham, Durrington and Uckfield have grown massively .... on greenfield, flora and fauna gone forever. I don’t know the alternative solutions.

 

[Eeyore]

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

That can't be a serious proposition.

Indirect taxes already make up about a third of revenue and they are spread equally. A person on a lower end income still pays taxes on everyday living. They should be protected as far as possible although they will still be affected regardless.

Many of those folk will have been working through this crisis in frontline jobs (shopworkers etc). They should be shielded from the hit as far as possible. Although it is inevitable they will have to pay more.

 

[NooBHA]

I agree with everything you say, with a different view on Brexit. I was a Remainer, but I always accepted the vote. That does leave us less able to take Trump so on, but then EU does too, for similar reasons I guess .... he could really, really hurt Germany for example (Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Bosch, Miele, Siemens).

My idealistic pipe dream .... to see the end of all tax havens. Full stop.

Money laundering, yes you’re spot on. Illegally gained assets across the world are legitimised, financial institutions in a competitive world accepting the business, states welcoming incoming investment cash flows.

We don't actually disagree on Brexit.

I too was an Advocate of "Remain". Maybe I wasn't clear on that

 

[Weststander]

That can't be a serious proposition.

Indirect taxes already make up about a third of revenue and they are spread equally. A person on a lower end income still pays taxes on everyday living. They should be protected as far as possible although they will still be affected regardless.

Many of those folk will have been working through this crisis in frontline jobs (shopworkers etc). They should be shielded from the hit as far as possible. Although it is inevitable they will have to pay more.

Agreed. By a higher personal allowance.

 

[Eeyore]

If the government really wants to help the burden they can make sure we get a proper deal with the EU before leaving the transitional arrangement.

It's been made clear by all sides that the economy will take some sort of hit with no deal. We can ill-afford that. So extend the talks if needed.

If they don't do that then we'll know if they truly care about the country's future or their own voters.

 

[amexer]

If you want to tax poor people disproportionately more then yeah, great idea.

Weren't you sticking up for Johnson on another thread? Makes sense.

I'm guessing it's a wind up.

Strange post. Taxes will have to go up and bit silly of me to ask a question. Thats a new one to know I am now a BJ supporter

 

[GT49er]

Yep, but then we voted for Brexit....

Unbelievable as it may seem to some, countries can and do cooperate both in and out of the EU.

 

[GT49er]

That can't be a serious proposition.

Indirect taxes already make up about a third of revenue and they are spread equally. A person on a lower end income still pays taxes on everyday living. They should be protected as far as possible although they will still be affected regardless.

A 2.5% increase across all bands of income tax is not indirect tax.

 

[Notters]

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?

Just bear in mind that the current system is already ridiculously unfair on couples and families with one main earner. If you brought in wholly transferable tax allowances then fair enough.

 

[sams dad]

I have a few questions for all those advocating an annual land/property tax.
Would the tax be levied on the current value of the property, or on the increase in value from when it was first purchased?
Who would do the valuations? Without a detailed survey of a house/ flat it would be impossible to accurately value it. You could have four houses that appear identical from the outside but are worth different amounts because of the way they have or haven’t been maintained and improved.
Would any allowance be made for time and money spent on improving the property?
Why should those of us who choose to spend our money on an extension, or a new kitchen, as opposed to buying a new car or going on an expensive holiday, be penalised?

 

[Machiavelli]

To pay off this Coronavirus debt, if I was in power ...

All big ticket items (HS2), that nuclear plant etc, scrapped immediately. Their costs will only escalate as their workers will have to socially distance.

Publish tax of all companies trading and mark them all very publically, red, amber green, according to whether they are paying a fair amount of tax. (ie Amazon are red)

Tax havens, I'd resolve with the use of gun boats. Big ones. Cannons have focussed minds for centuries

And I agree with whoever was saying about a sliding scale tax for property

You're right that 'transparency' is what's required. It's funny how those that bang on about it being so important for government, won't apply the same principle to financial assets and accounts.
Full publication is the first step and, once you've got that, whatever taxation, regulation, etc policy will follow. Of course, it'll be opposed on the grounds of privacy, but the public just need to be wise to such manoeuvres.
I don't want gun boats and cannons, however, and, more importantly, they're not needed. Just change the regulations and the current treasure islands will lose their status overnight, and will have to find other ways to organise their economy.

 

[Weststander]

Countries need to work together. We need to be closer to supranational organisations for very reasons like these. At the moment it's all too easy for individual counties to be played off against each other. This means grown up politicians prepared to make a more complex argument to their people.

It's still completely unfair that Amazon et al can out-compete onshore companies who pay tax to their employees, VAT on products and corporation tax on profits (as well as town centre floor space etc)

I agree with your post.

But VAT and PAYE are red herrings, Amazon would pay their full whack too.

The fraud in my eyes is paying negligible Corporation Tax on huge revenues, after a slight of hand with ‘charges’s from their fellow group company in the tax haven of Luxembourg. $14.5bn UK sales (excluding VAT), just £83m paid in CT.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yep, but then we voted for Brexit....

And this was one of the main reasons why I voted against Brexit. Ditto formulating postnational policies to slow down the climate crisis and anthropocene. Ditto being part of a relevant community when Russia is quite patently a hostile power, and China and the US are squaring up against one another.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm reading that and seeing £498,500 of untaxed wealth ripe for treasury plucking

And, of course, they "scrimped and saved" and paid their taxes. Well, they paid the taxes that were current. They surfed their luck on a massive hike in property prices, rather than "worked hard for this".
This is just a nonsense argument, voiced by someone who thinks they (or their parents) work harder, save wiser, and/or are better than others, and that hell is other people, like our care workers, most of which are living below the poverty line and, unless their partner has got a decent wage, have a minimal chance of owning a property, let alone one whose value increased 350-fold.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not entirely sure why you think my parent's house is in a trust - it's not. My point is that thay have paid all the tax on everything they have ever earned ( my Dad, as an ex-bank manager, is anything but a rule breaker ). Therefore they shouldn't be penalised for following the rules nor should they be penalised for deciding on investing their income in a home rather than say family holidays to Florida ( that's what I mean about pissing money up the wall ). My reference to a trust, or tax avoidance as I called it, was based on what I want to happen to my property when I die. I want that money to go to my kids not the government. I paid tax on the income that paid for the investment in my home - I see no moral case why I should pay tax again on it.

Rise in property value is as much earned income as say income from the increase in share investments yet somehow you never see people suggesting a tax on share value ( I accept there might be CGT payable when sold if they aren't in a pension scheme but it's very easy to avoid with planning ). A tax on property value is nothing but an envy tax and it's not even based on real value and the value of property is only what someone is prepared to pay.

We're really lucky to have you.

 

[Machiavelli]

I got full tax relief on the interest payments on my first mortgage - this tax allowance was phased out in 1983 and the MIRAS scheme with limits was then introduced - all tax relief on mortgage interest was finally phased out in 2000. There is little doubt that these tax reliefs helped to increase house prices.

So it’s fair to say that a good proportion of the value of our house is thanks to the Exchequer.

But what of all your hard work, and all your wise decisions? You're under-selling yourself here. Believe in yourself. Big up all what you've done. And why not have a pop at everyone else while you're at it. It's a popular strategy round these parts.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And, of course, they "scrimped and saved" and paid their taxes. Well, they paid the taxes that were current. They surfed their luck on a massive hike in property prices, rather than "worked hard for this".
This is just a nonsense argument, voiced by someone who thinks they (or their parents) work harder, save wiser, and/or are better than others, and that hell is other people, like our care workers, most of which are living below the poverty line and, unless their partner has got a decent wage, have a minimal chance of owning a property, let alone one whose value increased 350-fold.

We're really lucky to have you.

But what of all your hard work, and all your wise decisions? You're under-selling yourself here. Believe in yourself. Big up all what you've done. And why not have a pop at everyone else while you're at it. It's a popular strategy round these parts.

And there was me thinking Denis Healey was dead when he's actually alive and well and on NSC.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not entirely sure why you think my parent's house is in a trust - it's not. My point is that thay have paid all the tax on everything they have ever earned ( my Dad, as an ex-bank manager, is anything but a rule breaker ). Therefore they shouldn't be penalised for following the rules nor should they be penalised for deciding on investing their income in a home rather than say family holidays to Florida ( that's what I mean about pissing money up the wall ). My reference to a trust, or tax avoidance as I called it, was based on what I want to happen to my property when I die. I want that money to go to my kids not the government. I paid tax on the income that paid for the investment in my home - I see no moral case why I should pay tax again on it.

Rise in property value is as much earned income as say income from the increase in share investments yet somehow you never see people suggesting a tax on share value ( I accept there might be CGT payable when sold if they aren't in a pension scheme but it's very easy to avoid with planning ). A tax on property value is nothing but an envy tax and it's not even based on real value and the value of property is only what someone is prepared to pay.

Spoken like a true Tory

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Spoken like a true Tory

.... or a Champagne socialist