Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

including Budgets
Adamski
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1075
Joined: July 13th, 2020, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 1465 times
Been thanked: 553 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491030

Postby Adamski » April 2nd, 2022, 10:55 am

Most people can lower their rate dramatically by tax planning, i.e. electric company car, maximising isa and pension allowances, investing in principal private residence, inheritance tax planning etc.

OK I'm very lucky, but work part time using personal tax allowance. Maximise isa allowance and pensions for myself and wife. Overall tax rate very low with bit of luck and planning.

absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1505
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 653 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491083

Postby absolutezero » April 2nd, 2022, 1:54 pm

Lootman wrote:There is no way this is a tax-cutting government.

There's no way this is a Conservative government!
You have a New Labour government in a blonde wig and fat suit with a blue rosette pinned to it.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491099

Postby Lootman » April 2nd, 2022, 3:28 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:
TUK020 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
Alaric wrote:
Lootman wrote:However, it wouldn't surprise me if 40% were about right - my anecdotal take is that people probably start thinking it's unfair once it crosses the 50% barrier (i.e. they're paying more than half their earnings in tax)..

is there another effect, which we've been seeing for the last thirty years or more? That is that nominal salaries xan be increased to astronomic levels, BBC presenters, CEOs etc. When tax rates were 85% etc, did that not encourage those in a position to dictate their remuneration package to take it in soft forms such as non-taxable perks?

My understanding is that when marginal income tax rates were 60% or more, then it was routine for people to hide or offshore income, or otherwise find 101 ways of frustrating the taxman.

Which is why nobody was surprised when the revenue take actually went up when Reagan and Thatcher slashed the tax rates. Who could have predicted that?

Marginal tax & NI rates are 62% now between £100-123k earnings, with the withdrawal of personal allowances.

A lot less than the 83% and 98% rates that prevailed in my youth, and over 100% one year due to a retrospective surcharge. Those rates applied to taxable income over £2,000. The current rates are bliss compared to that! As was found when they eventually lowered those rates, far more tax was raised when the rates were much lower.

Just as Eugene Laffer predicted of course.

Although I don't think he had in mind that the taxes would just be collected in other ways, which is presumably the case if the UK tax take is now at its highest point for decades. The other part of the Thatcher/Reagan revolution was supposed to be to slash government spending, and that proved to be a lot harder to do than merely cutting the headline income tax rates. Politicians just love to spend other peoples' money.

stevensfo
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3435
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am
Has thanked: 3805 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491480

Postby stevensfo » April 4th, 2022, 11:59 am

Lootman wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
TUK020 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
Alaric wrote:is there another effect, which we've been seeing for the last thirty years or more? That is that nominal salaries xan be increased to astronomic levels, BBC presenters, CEOs etc. When tax rates were 85% etc, did that not encourage those in a position to dictate their remuneration package to take it in soft forms such as non-taxable perks?

My understanding is that when marginal income tax rates were 60% or more, then it was routine for people to hide or offshore income, or otherwise find 101 ways of frustrating the taxman.

Which is why nobody was surprised when the revenue take actually went up when Reagan and Thatcher slashed the tax rates. Who could have predicted that?

Marginal tax & NI rates are 62% now between £100-123k earnings, with the withdrawal of personal allowances.

A lot less than the 83% and 98% rates that prevailed in my youth, and over 100% one year due to a retrospective surcharge. Those rates applied to taxable income over £2,000. The current rates are bliss compared to that! As was found when they eventually lowered those rates, far more tax was raised when the rates were much lower.

Just as Eugene Laffer predicted of course.

Although I don't think he had in mind that the taxes would just be collected in other ways, which is presumably the case if the UK tax take is now at its highest point for decades. The other part of the Thatcher/Reagan revolution was supposed to be to slash government spending, and that proved to be a lot harder to do than merely cutting the headline income tax rates. Politicians just love to spend other peoples' money.


I have to admit that I had never really thought about just how many ways we're paying tax. Rather a nice trick to use the word 'Duty' and then make us pay VAT on top! I think the one I dislike the most has to be Council tax. At least with most taxes, you have some control, e.g. consume less, smaller car, earn more. But council tax seems to be a charge for just 'existing'.

Steve

vand
Lemon Slice
Posts: 758
Joined: January 5th, 2022, 9:00 am
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491503

Postby vand » April 4th, 2022, 1:16 pm

Tax freedom day is calculated to be May 5th for the UK currently.

It's more important than ever that the average person is smart about their tax situation and makes full use of tax shelters. The amount of people I know who could cut their marginal tax rate from 42% to 0% just by contributing into their company pension, for example, is staggering

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491530

Postby Lootman » April 4th, 2022, 3:12 pm

stevensfo wrote:I have to admit that I had never really thought about just how many ways we're paying tax. Rather a nice trick to use the word 'Duty' and then make us pay VAT on top! I think the one I dislike the most has to be Council tax. At least with most taxes, you have some control, e.g. consume less, smaller car, earn more. But council tax seems to be a charge for just 'existing'.

I have given some thought as to how to avoid paying council tax. It's not easy but I believe it can be done.

For instance the third and subsequent adult in a household will effectively pay no council tax, in that the council tax is set on the presumption of two adults per household, with a discount if there is only one adult.

I once bought an old residential building that has been converted into 4 flats. By reverting the property to a single home I was able to stop paying 4 lots of council tax. This was achieved with very few structural alterations, and so I could still rent out the flats as they were, whilst the tenants were technically lodgers.

Or one could be "off the grid". The council only knows that you live in a given property if your name is declared on the council tax form that is sent out annually. If your personal situation is such that no form is received or completed, then no tax can be levied. I would presume for instance that travellers and permanent campers pay no council tax, although I recall someone on TLF who lives on a boat but has to pay it?

Anyone got other ideas?

Gerry557
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1999
Joined: September 2nd, 2019, 10:23 am
Has thanked: 172 times
Been thanked: 541 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491592

Postby Gerry557 » April 4th, 2022, 6:59 pm

stevensfo wrote:
I have to admit that I had never really thought about just how many ways we're paying tax. Rather a nice trick to use the word 'Duty' and then make us pay VAT on top! I think the one I dislike the most has to be Council tax. At least with most taxes, you have some control, e.g. consume less, smaller car, earn more. But council tax seems to be a charge for just 'existing'.

Steve


You can live in a smaller house! Choose a band A. You can also live in a cheaper area council tax wise. Westminster is worth a look.

A cardboard box is also a very cheap option.
Last edited by tjh290633 on April 4th, 2022, 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Corrected quote attribution-TJH

stevensfo
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3435
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am
Has thanked: 3805 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491629

Postby stevensfo » April 4th, 2022, 8:16 pm

Gerry557 wrote:
stevensfo wrote:
I have to admit that I had never really thought about just how many ways we're paying tax. Rather a nice trick to use the word 'Duty' and then make us pay VAT on top! I think the one I dislike the most has to be Council tax. At least with most taxes, you have some control, e.g. consume less, smaller car, earn more. But council tax seems to be a charge for just 'existing'.

Steve


You can live in a smaller house! Choose a band A. You can also live in a cheaper area council tax wise. Westminster is worth a look.

A cardboard box is also a very cheap option.


Haha, yes sure. I assume you're replying very tongue in cheek. At least I hope so. Have you seen the cost of cardboard boxes these days? ;)

Why someone should move from their 'home' to a smaller house when they're using even fewer local facilities, is quite disgusting. Especially if they are not themselves responsible for their 'home' suddenly being worth a lot more than they ever dreamt of, as well as abiding by all the local laws to keep costs down -smelly wheelie bins emptied less frequently etc.

In Italy, where I'm working now, the income tax is higher than the UK, but there is no council tax apart from a charge for rubbish collection. The council tax is only on the 2nd residence, which many Italian families possess, though still less than the average UK council tax. This means that retired people are not forced, Russian-style, to leave their homes when their income drops, and can thus enjoy a relatively peaceful retirement.

I think that council tax has been allowed to reach ridiculous levels, but like the analogy with boiling a frog, people just get used to it.


Steve

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491643

Postby Lootman » April 4th, 2022, 8:56 pm

stevensfo wrote:
Gerry557 wrote:
stevensfo wrote:I have to admit that I had never really thought about just how many ways we're paying tax. Rather a nice trick to use the word 'Duty' and then make us pay VAT on top! I think the one I dislike the most has to be Council tax. At least with most taxes, you have some control, e.g. consume less, smaller car, earn more. But council tax seems to be a charge for just 'existing'.

You can live in a smaller house! Choose a band A. You can also live in a cheaper area council tax wise. Westminster is worth a look.

A cardboard box is also a very cheap option.

Haha, yes sure. I assume you're replying very tongue in cheek. At least I hope so. Have you seen the cost of cardboard boxes these days? ;)

Why someone should move from their 'home' to a smaller house when they're using even fewer local facilities, is quite disgusting. Especially if they are not themselves responsible for their 'home' suddenly being worth a lot more than they ever dreamt of, as well as abiding by all the local laws to keep costs down -smelly wheelie bins emptied less frequently etc.

Yes, I would prefer to see the burden of local taxation paid by those who most consume council services, rather than someone who owns the most valuable house but may not necessarily have the cash to pay thousands a year in council tax.

I actually thought that Thatcher's poll tax was a decent idea - everyone pays a levy to fund the services that everyone in that location uses. Perhaps it was the implementation of that ill-fated policy that was the problem rather than the principle of it.

But it could also be worse. In the US it is only property owners who pay local tax (in the form of what are called property taxes there). So if you own a house and rent it out, you are still on the hook for property taxes annually that can be as high as 3% of the current market value of the property. Meanwhile tenants pay nothing and the landlord may well live elsewhere and use no local services.

Eboli
Lemon Slice
Posts: 337
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491866

Postby Eboli » April 5th, 2022, 3:19 pm

For what it's worth, the Laffer optimal revenue raising rate of tax depends on the tax you are looking at. Tax on capital gains has attracted most research and Professor Robert Lindsey in the States did most of the research in the 1970s/90s. Some early thinking is included in Showdown at Gucci Gulch - a book worth reading for some wonderful anecdotes of that period on US Tax reform. In Britain, it was strangely Lord Cockfield, when Minister of State at the Treasury in the early 1980s, who looked at most of the research when engaged in the first of three attempts to introduce indexation (1982, 1985 and 1988). It was widely accepted that the optimal revenue raising rate of tax on capital gains was about 16-18% and most of that research was given to Darling when he "reformed' CGT when Chancellor and introduced the lower unindexed rate in 1998. Indeed, whatever research he commissioned at the time confirmed the 16-18% prediction.

Of course, the optimal revenue raising rate for income was much higher (primarily because it was less subject to behavioural shifts. It was obviously less than the two rates for investment income surcharge in the late 1970s of 93% and 98%. I recall once short story told by Lord Peter Rees, who later became Treasury Chief Secretary, who once gave a taxi driver a 10p tip beaming "There's £5 for your troubles" explaining that that's what the 10p represented before it was taxed.

A more interesting area of research has come more to the fore by the Georgists and Land Value Taxation advocates, who have tried to accurately calculate the excess burden of each of the taxes (or perhaps the taxes on each classical factor of production). In one sense this is Laffer in a more dynamic reincarnation. It goes back to David Ricardo's calculation on the loss to production of taxing each factor of production and the assumption that land has the least excess burden. Georgists would argue that simply raising the same amount of taxation from, say, land instead of the same amount from profits or labour's income would result in a higher over rate of production at the same level of taxation. Indeed, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that raising more tax from land and less on profits/income is a way of raising more for the Exchequer at no excess burden. If true this would suggest also that the Laffer optimal revenue-raising rate of tax on land can be higher than 40%.

It is a shame these ideas are not given the opportunity for wider debate as too often arguments on taxation are very misguided.

Eb.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491871

Postby Lootman » April 5th, 2022, 3:36 pm

Eboli wrote:there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that raising more tax from land and less on profits/income is a way of raising more for the Exchequer at no excess burden. If true this would suggest also that the Laffer optimal revenue-raising rate of tax on land can be higher than 40%.

Given that land isn't directly taxed at the moment, and indeed can come with tax breaks, then the idea of introducing a tax on its value in some recurring manner would place a heavy burden on those who invested in land believing that there was an implied contract that it would not suddenly become subject to new taxes, let alone a tax rate of over 40%! And it smacks of being a de facto wealth tax.

Land value tax is one of those things that academics love to endlessly debate, presumably because it is theoretically elegant. Yet somehow few governments ever actually adopt it. And since land is owned by fewer people than those who currently have income or profits, the introduction of such a tax could be seen as needlessly punitive on a minority. Unless of course it is also proposed to exempt real assets from CGT and IHT. And/or exempt land from council tax computations(*). Then we could have a conversation.

(*) A friend of mine lives in a very small house with a few acres of land. He is in the top tier for council tax purposes despite his home being no more than 100 square metres of living space. He complains about it all the time.

TUK020
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2039
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491917

Postby TUK020 » April 5th, 2022, 6:07 pm

Eboli wrote: Indeed, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that raising more tax from land and less on profits/income is a way of raising more for the Exchequer at no excess burden. If true this would suggest also that the Laffer optimal revenue-raising rate of tax on land can be higher than 40%.
Eb.

Are you talking about the 40% of the capital value of the land, or of the rental income from it?

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491925

Postby Lootman » April 5th, 2022, 6:26 pm

TUK020 wrote:
Eboli wrote: Indeed, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that raising more tax from land and less on profits/income is a way of raising more for the Exchequer at no excess burden. If true this would suggest also that the Laffer optimal revenue-raising rate of tax on land can be higher than 40%.

Are you talking about the 40% of the capital value of the land, or of the rental income from it?

If the former then that would be extortionate. If the latter then it sounds like the old method that used to be used for determining council tax i.e. a tax on the theoretically imputed rent that could be obtained for a piece of land or a building.

Either way I think it is a non-starter. If I were starting a nation and system of taxation from scratch, I'd consider such a tax in place of some of the taxes we currently have. But I don't know how we could get from here to there without a great deal of disruption and unfairness.

That is the problem with theoretical taxes that academics come up with. They don't take into account real-world practicalities, the law of unintended consequences and the fact that people actually have to approve these things through elections, indirectly anyway.

stevensfo
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3435
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am
Has thanked: 3805 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#491947

Postby stevensfo » April 5th, 2022, 7:14 pm

Lootman wrote:
Eboli wrote:there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that raising more tax from land and less on profits/income is a way of raising more for the Exchequer at no excess burden. If true this would suggest also that the Laffer optimal revenue-raising rate of tax on land can be higher than 40%.

Given that land isn't directly taxed at the moment, and indeed can come with tax breaks, then the idea of introducing a tax on its value in some recurring manner would place a heavy burden on those who invested in land believing that there was an implied contract that it would not suddenly become subject to new taxes, let alone a tax rate of over 40%! And it smacks of being a de facto wealth tax.

Land value tax is one of those things that academics love to endlessly debate, presumably because it is theoretically elegant. Yet somehow few governments ever actually adopt it. And since land is owned by fewer people than those who currently have income or profits, the introduction of such a tax could be seen as needlessly punitive on a minority. Unless of course it is also proposed to exempt real assets from CGT and IHT. And/or exempt land from council tax computations(*). Then we could have a conversation.

(*) A friend of mine lives in a very small house with a few acres of land. He is in the top tier for council tax purposes despite his home being no more than 100 square metres of living space. He complains about it all the time.


Wow, that is a bloody small house!

I have an aunt/uncle who lived in houses with lots of land (this was over 25 years ago before house prices went into Neverneverland!) and, my aunt and cousin being into horses, put up some stables and fences and rented them out to other horsey people. They had a waiting list! Could your friend not do this? People pay a fortune to stable their horses and teenage girls especially used to jump at the chance of looking after horses! I never understood that, and it probably doesn't happen anymore. Elf and Safety and all that!

Steve

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#492255

Postby 1nvest » April 6th, 2022, 7:09 pm

vand wrote:Tax freedom day is calculated to be May 5th for the UK currently.

It's more important than ever that the average person is smart about their tax situation and makes full use of tax shelters. The amount of people I know who could cut their marginal tax rate from 42% to 0% just by contributing into their company pension, for example, is staggering

And with long in ISA, short in SIPP, that money can be filtered back out again

PV example (US)

Imagine SDS (2x short) inside SIPP, SSO (2x long) in ISA, and click the annual returns option to see just how much the SIPP value would have declined over time. Combined with other taxpayers topping that up for you, and even a relatively low/safe return becomes a more decent return.

Eboli
Lemon Slice
Posts: 337
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#492288

Postby Eboli » April 6th, 2022, 8:25 pm

TUK020 asked:

Are you talking about the 40% of the capital value of the land, or of the rental income from it?


Georgists and advocates of Land Value Tax (LVT) are talking of neither. The tax is levied on the excess of the value of the highest valued permitted use use over a nominal value (normally the value of the land to the occupier who occupies it as agricultural land). Incidentally, that is very different to the imputed value used for some versions of council tax. It would replace all other taxes on land (Council tax, rates, Income tax, Corporation tax, IHT and CGT and SDLT) - indeed the Georgists have always referred to it as the Single Tax (in which form it was responsible for the 1911 Constitutional crisis and won the support of Winston Churchill). Some (including myself) would see the merit of it being the only source of local government revenue to ensure Nibyism is fully taxed. It includes a windfall element as it taxes land value derived from infrastructure for which the landowner has not directly contributed towards, e.g., the uplift in value caused by extending or building new tube lines in London.

Where LVT has been introduced as a major contribution to government revenues in the Far East - such as Singapore and Taiwan - it has permitted the reduction of taxation on profits and labour to very low values. Indeed, in Hong Kong it was once the only major source of revenue. It can be combined with higher burdens of taxation to produce a more equitable division of taxes and tax burdens, such as in Denmark. It is hardly theoretical and certainly not a wealth tax - a charge levied only by those who have no understanding of it.

The conclusion of the IFS promoted Mirrless Review

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/mirrleesreview

concluded that the economic case for land value tax is simple and almost undeniable.

But LVT's main problem is not that it doesn't take account of real-word practicalities but rather the embedded love of for ever rising property values. LVT would (probably) put that quietly to an end rather than the fireworks that will come - though bubbles always go on far longer than we ever believe possible.

Eb

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#492291

Postby Lootman » April 6th, 2022, 8:36 pm

Eboli wrote:LVT's main problem is not that it doesn't take account of real-word practicalities but rather the embedded love of for ever rising property values. LVT would (probably) put that quietly to an end rather than the fireworks that will come - though bubbles always go on far longer than we ever believe possible.

In other words LVT ignores the "real world practicality" that the people and voters don't like it and won't accept it.

So all that theoretical elegance and ponderous academia comes to nothing if it won't be accepted.

Taxes should never be designed by people who spend their entire lives in academia and politics.

vand
Lemon Slice
Posts: 758
Joined: January 5th, 2022, 9:00 am
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#492311

Postby vand » April 6th, 2022, 9:27 pm

1nvest wrote:
vand wrote:Tax freedom day is calculated to be May 5th for the UK currently.

It's more important than ever that the average person is smart about their tax situation and makes full use of tax shelters. The amount of people I know who could cut their marginal tax rate from 42% to 0% just by contributing into their company pension, for example, is staggering

And with long in ISA, short in SIPP, that money can be filtered back out again

PV example (US)

Imagine SDS (2x short) inside SIPP, SSO (2x long) in ISA, and click the annual returns option to see just how much the SIPP value would have declined over time. Combined with other taxpayers topping that up for you, and even a relatively low/safe return becomes a more decent return.


I've had similar thoughts myself in the past (also for purposes of managing the LTA), but what if the trade goes the other way? So short SIPP, long ISA... what happens if the market goes down?

Then you just end up with everything in the SIPP, unaccessible, running into LTA problems, and probably taxable at 40%...

Spet0789
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1913
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 12:02 am
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 952 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#492325

Postby Spet0789 » April 6th, 2022, 10:18 pm

I read something interesting the other day.

A 25 year old university graduate pays 42.5% tax on marginal earnings above £30k.

A 75 year old university graduate pays 20% tax on marginal earnings above £30k.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: BBC Reality Check - Total Tax Burden the Highest Since the 1940's

#492327

Postby Lootman » April 6th, 2022, 10:31 pm

Spet0789 wrote:I read something interesting the other day.

A 25 year old university graduate pays 42.5% tax on marginal earnings above £30k.

A 75 year old university graduate pays 20% tax on marginal earnings above £30k.

Presumably the 25 year old is mostly taxed on employment income whereas the 75 year old is mostly taxed on investment income.

Since the latter involves risk and the former does not, would you not expect the latter to be taxed at a lower rate?


Return to “The Economy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests