The Lemon Fool

A lot simpler for HMG just to write off the debt it owes to itself, and that is quite a big number, and neither the creditor nor the debtor will be upset!

scrumpyjack wrote:A lot simpler for HMG just to write off the debt it owes to itself, and that is quite a big number, and neither the creditor nor the debtor will be upset!

If it is left as it is then there are circular book entries for interest that go on for ever. There is an argument for the ability to reduce M0 through the sale of the debt to the market by the Bank of England.

This is a great discussion

I would be ok with the wealth tax, not sure what the base figure would be. I feel those of us over 55 have done well and if we are wealthy we can afford it.

If we are very wealthy, IHT is going to duff us up anyway.

In fact I would go so far as to see, our public services are a reflection on an obsession with low tax.


But

if we go too far, capital will move.

and we will never get the the super wealthy this way, to get them put super tax on purchases above a million?

Moosehoosenew wrote:I feel those of us over 55 have done well and if we are wealthy we can afford it.

The fact that someone can afford to pay more tax is not a reason to tax them more. Unless of course you just think they should be punished for being successful.

Moosehoosenew wrote:If we are very wealthy, IHT is going to duff us up anyway.

Only for those who do not take simple steps to avoid IHT, of which there are many.

Moosehoosenew wrote:In fact I would go so far as to see, our public services are a reflection on an obsession with low tax.

The voters can decide how obsessed they are with taxes not being punitive. And those same voters can decide if they want limits on the public teat.

Moosehoosenew wrote:we will never get the the super wealthy this way, to get them put super tax on purchases above a million?

How hard do you think it is for the global super-wealthy to avoid spending a million in the UK when every other nation wants that money?

I was not thinking of us being punished, more that we have done ok and can contribute a bit more

Our taxes versus Northern Europe are very low and in my opinion our public services reflect this

regarding movement of wealth, the super wealthy do move it.

I am not super wealthy but ok thanks, and if I have to say put on £200k next year, happy to do it.

and in regard to IHT if you are remotely wealthy, you will do really well to avoid IHT, I certainly do not think I can avoid it, in spite of sharing with family and others.

I do though would want public sector pensions to be valued correctly to ensure those that have large ones pay their share. Private company pensions are I believe being bought out at huge multiples.

So I imagine a policeman on say 25k index linked, has a poy that should be valued at least a million.

I cannot see how we do not need to ask the wealthy to share a bit more. I could cope with up to 5%, and I doubt it would make a blind bit of difference to my life.

Applying wealth taxes in the UK really cant be that difficult. Other countries in Europe have wealth taxes that work ok for them. Let's just get on with it, we can fine tune as we go.

richlist wrote:Applying wealth taxes in the UK really cant be that difficult. Other countries in Europe have wealth taxes that work ok for them. Let's just get on with it, we can fine tune as we go.

Can you define what you mean by work ok please?

No I cant.
I'm not an expert, I have people that do that sort of stuff for me. As this is a discussion forum I thought I'd throw my experience into the ring.

What I do know is that I have property in Spain and i pay an annual wealth tax. It not a large amount, its affordable for me and if it works for Spain it'll very likely work in the UK sooner rather than later.

richlist wrote:What I do know is that I have property in Spain and i pay an annual wealth tax. It not a large amount, its affordable for me and if it works for Spain it'll very likely work in the UK sooner rather than later.

Spain has a property tax and a wealth tax. Do you pay both?

richlist wrote:No I cant.
I'm not an expert, I have people that do that sort of stuff for me. As this is a discussion forum I thought I'd throw my experience into the ring.

What I do know is that I have property in Spain and i pay an annual wealth tax. It not a large amount, its affordable for me and if it works for Spain it'll very likely work in the UK sooner rather than later.

So work means "some people pay it". Fair enough but I think most taxes will meet that hurdle of "working". The paper, and the subsequent discussion here, have a bit more depth to it than that.

Nothing can be surer than given Covid and an ageing population, taxes will need to rise.

We should involve ourselves in the conversation, those of us over 50 and doing ok.

Right now, it just looks like we are shovelling debt onto the next generation.

Say you have 4 million, 3.5 mill does not look too bad either.

I have a lot of respect for some aspects of higher tax Europe, would have hated it when I was trying to grow a company.

Moosehoosenew wrote:Nothing can be surer than given Covid and an ageing population, taxes will need to rise..

Why? What physical resources are being used by the private sector that need to be freed up?

Tax has nothing to do with money. We can leave the rich to count their coins and employ everybody at the same time. And when we do the latter we get a boost to productivity, which is what actually funds improvements in the standard of living for all.

Where has this zero-sum mentality come from?

NeilW wrote:We can leave the rich to count their coins and employ everybody at the same time. And when we do the latter we get a boost to productivity, which is what actually funds improvements in the standard of living for all.

That worked well in the USSR. And Cuba. And still works in North Korea.

Oh.

V8

https://www.gov.uk/pay-self-assessment-tax-bill/bank-details

There is nothing stopping voluntary contributions to HMRC.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the- ... pockethits

This article just puts some flesh on the bones of how assets are not taxed and the ultra wealthy can minimise income tax (basically have a low income and/or borrow against assets). Wealth taxes may not be the answer but the current policies and implementations are leading to a greater concentration of wealth.

Best wishes,

Steve

Steveam wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

This article just puts some flesh on the bones of how assets are not taxed and the ultra wealthy can minimise income tax (basically have a low income and/or borrow against assets). Wealth taxes may not be the answer but the current policies and implementations are leading to a greater concentration of wealth.

The article contains a large flaw. It attempts to compute an "effective tax rate" by dividing the actual tax paid by the increase in wealth for that year. But nobody calculates tax that way, and certainly does not levy tax that way. Much of those gains in wealth are increases in unrealised capital gains. Individuals are not taxed that way so it misleading to include such gains in the computations.

Caveat: I have not as yet read the paper.

Lootman wrote:

Steveam wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

This article just puts some flesh on the bones of how assets are not taxed and the ultra wealthy can minimise income tax (basically have a low income and/or borrow against assets). Wealth taxes may not be the answer but the current policies and implementations are leading to a greater concentration of wealth.

The article contains a large flaw. It attempts to compute an "effective tax rate" by dividing the actual tax paid by the increase in wealth for that year. But nobody calculates tax that way, and certainly does not levy tax that way. Much of those gains in wealth are increases in unrealised capital gains. Individuals are not taxed that way so it misleading to include such gains in the computations.

I would have thought, reading the comment about the paper, that is hardly a "large flaw" - as it sounds likely to me to be the whole point the article is making!

"nobody calculates tax that way, and certainly does not levy tax that way"

XFool wrote:Caveat: I have not as yet read the paper.

Lootman wrote:

Steveam wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

This article just puts some flesh on the bones of how assets are not taxed and the ultra wealthy can minimise income tax (basically have a low income and/or borrow against assets). Wealth taxes may not be the answer but the current policies and implementations are leading to a greater concentration of wealth.

The article contains a large flaw. It attempts to compute an "effective tax rate" by dividing the actual tax paid by the increase in wealth for that year. But nobody calculates tax that way, and certainly does not levy tax that way. Much of those gains in wealth are increases in unrealised capital gains. Individuals are not taxed that way so it misleading to include such gains in the computations.

I would have thought, reading the comment about the paper, that is hardly a "large flaw" - as it sounds likely to me to be the whole point the article is making!

"nobody calculates tax that way, and certainly does not levy tax that way"

I was not suggesting that it is a flaw to consider a wealth tax. And of course some forms of a wealth tax would effectively be a tax on unrealised gains because it would be a tax on the valuation of assets.

What I think is a flaw is to suggest that the current tax rate that some wealthy people pay is 3% or 4%. That is highly misleading. It would be like including any theoretical increase in the value of your home into your tax divisor.

Of course if someone believes that unrealised capital gains should be taxed then that could happen without a wealth tax. Just mark-to-market the value of your investments and properties each year. That is how trading desks are taxed in various countries, although I am not aware that any major nation taxes individuals in that way. It would lead to some very odd outcomes: For example in a year where homes go down in value, do you get a tax refund? There are good reasons why we do not tax people in such ways.

...I didn't like the way the article described their version as "The real tax rate". It simply being the rate using their method of taxation. The historical background was interesting.

The issue with falling asset values in a year occurred to me. Obviously there are various possible solutions: a combined yearly Income & Capital Increase/(Decrease) taxation rate. Or a separate fixed small yearly taxation rate on absolute capital value.