Wealth tax and the rich

[Bubblesofearth]

You seem to be missing the point. Can you explain why fiction books should be free to read, funded by the rate-payer?

There is nothing stopping people buying <shock horror> the books they wish to read.

You can make an economic or even 'save-the-planet' argument for why it's better to have a book read by a dozen people rather than a dozen of the same book read by those people.

But IMO libraries offer a more intangible social value than simply supplying books. They are a place where people can browse, chat to (usually friendly) staff, spend time away from a home environment, take their kids on wet afternoons (our library runs a small creche where kids are introduced to books), or simply become aware of just how vast the world of literature is. Yes, you can browse books online but for me it's just not the same. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but wandering the stacks of a library is a far more satisfying experience than sitting at a computer.

Libraries are a part of our society and heritage that I would be sad to see go.

BoE

[Nimrod103]

You seem to be missing the point. Can you explain why fiction books should be free to read, funded by the rate-payer?

There is nothing stopping people buying <shock horror> the books they wish to read.

You can make an economic or even 'save-the-planet' argument for why it's better to have a book read by a dozen people rather than a dozen of the same book read by those people.

But IMO libraries offer a more intangible social value than simply supplying books. They are a place where people can browse, chat to (usually friendly) staff, spend time away from a home environment, take their kids on wet afternoons (our library runs a small creche where kids are introduced to books), or simply become aware of just how vast the world of literature is. Yes, you can browse books online but for me it's just not the same. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but wandering the stacks of a library is a far more satisfying experience than sitting at a computer.

Libraries are a part of our society and heritage that I would be sad to see go.

BoE

I take your point about libraries being nice cosy places to go when it’s cold or wet or the kids are driving you to distraction, though the idea that it is a place to chat when traditionally librarians insist on everyone being quiet is a little inconsistent. However why should they be free? And why the emphasis on bigger being better?

It is the same argument about all freebies provided by local authorities or subsidies provided by government. Is it the fair thing to do If they don’t benefit everyone. The local library will only be accessible by a limited Number of nearby residents. The same issue is being discussed in my town where a large public park on the outskirts has introduced parking charges. Residents who live nearby are very happy with that. Residents who live on the other side of town object. And residents who live in the country areas of the borough say ‘when will the council buy us a park, or build us a library?’

[Mike4]

You seem to be missing the point. Can you explain why fiction books should be free to read, funded by the rate-payer?

There is nothing stopping people buying <shock horror> the books they wish to read.

You can make an economic or even 'save-the-planet' argument for why it's better to have a book read by a dozen people rather than a dozen of the same book read by those people.

But IMO libraries offer a more intangible social value than simply supplying books. They are a place where people can browse, chat to (usually friendly) staff, spend time away from a home environment, take their kids on wet afternoons (our library runs a small creche where kids are introduced to books), or simply become aware of just how vast the world of literature is. Yes, you can browse books online but for me it's just not the same. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but wandering the stacks of a library is a far more satisfying experience than sitting at a computer.

Libraries are a part of our society and heritage that I would be sad to see go.

BoE

Yes I agree with all of that, but £180m for one, funded by the ratepayers? Why should they not be funded by the users?

[Charlottesquare]

You can make an economic or even 'save-the-planet' argument for why it's better to have a book read by a dozen people rather than a dozen of the same book read by those people.

But IMO libraries offer a more intangible social value than simply supplying books. They are a place where people can browse, chat to (usually friendly) staff, spend time away from a home environment, take their kids on wet afternoons (our library runs a small creche where kids are introduced to books), or simply become aware of just how vast the world of literature is. Yes, you can browse books online but for me it's just not the same. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but wandering the stacks of a library is a far more satisfying experience than sitting at a computer.

Libraries are a part of our society and heritage that I would be sad to see go.

BoE

I take your point about libraries being nice cosy places to go when it’s cold or wet or the kids are driving you to distraction, though the idea that it is a place to chat when traditionally librarians insist on everyone being quiet is a little inconsistent. However why should they be free? And why the emphasis on bigger being better?

It is the same argument about all freebies provided by local authorities or subsidies provided by government. Is it the fair thing to do If they don’t benefit everyone. The local library will only be accessible by a limited Number of nearby residents. The same issue is being discussed in my town where a large public park on the outskirts has introduced parking charges. Residents who live nearby are very happy with that. Residents who live on the other side of town object. And residents who live in the country areas of the borough say ‘when will the council buy us a park, or build us a library?’

It surely is effectively free for similar reasons that schools are free.

And why pick on libraries, if Councils ought only do core activities that then takes out parks and sports facilities for a start, and then we have things like The Edinburgh Festival, Concerts, Theatres, these may have charges but these are token compared with their real costs and subsidies are often partly Council funded (Rates Reliefs)- look at something like Covent Garden and where it gets its funding.

Then we start on charities and their rates relief, that is Council funding.

Narrowing what a Council contributes to its geographic area into narrow fields ignores the city wide benefits such activities assist and the wellbeing of the citizens-not everything ought to have a price.

[redsturgeon]

Moderator Message:
We have strayed, so any OT posts after this message will be deleted. Thanks

[Arborbridge]

Narrowing what a Council contributes to its geographic area into narrow fields ignores the city wide benefits such activities assist and the wellbeing of the citizens-not everything ought to have a price.

Absolutely, and if we let the pure right wing "I'm all right Jack" bean counters in on the job they will not take into account the wider benefits (some of which are not costable) to our society. Governments and local governments ought to have a duty to take into account the overall well being of the society which they are, in effect, safeguarding.

Some people believe we should all "stand on our own two feet" and one needs only personal effort to reach those sunlit uplands. Such people never take into account the advantages which accrue from communal expenditure, and the harm that will be done to others following them if this is sacrificed. To think you do it all by your own efforts and motivation ignores generations of public money preparing the ground for us. I reckon 80% of our success is outside our control - it's just luck and other people's effort (unwittingly) on our behalf.

We need to employ empathy and take the long view.

Arb.

[1nvest]

Moderator Message:
We don't have a definition of "Rich", although some seem to think that it is anybody paying the higher rates of tax, or maybe having a property valued in 7 figures, which is not difficult these days.

TJH

Is the Labour definition that of being in the worlds richest half ... we'll hit/tax the rich ... where the rich are those with assets/wealth/income in excess of £5000

[Wuffle]

Average earnings and house prices across the UK from a quick Google would appear to be low 30k and 285k, so a South East resident might think high rate tax and a million is a low bar but it clearly isn't elsewhere.

I have some perspective on this as a brief resident of Guildford (where you can't throw a rock without hitting a property millionaire) as a student and now a resident of probably the most southerly of the post industrial apocalypse towns - Stoke.

W.

[Gerry557]

I think that is the crux of the matter. Your and my definition of rich might be somewhat different to a Labour politician. I'm not even sure if they could agree among themselves what that starting level would be.

I think when that term "rich" is banded about, it's to get us to think of those with mega yachts and private islands not retired teachers and nurses who have managed to pay off the mortgage and save something.

£1m used to mean something back in the day but now it might be a reasonable home and car depending on where you live.

Still I'd bend down to pick it up if I found it in the street.

[Gilgongo]

I think that is the crux of the matter. Your and my definition of rich might be somewhat different to a Labour politician. I'm not even sure if they could agree among themselves what that starting level would be.

As the first reply to the OP said, it's possible to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation:

... the top 1% (ie, those with accumulated wealth of more than £3.4m) .... Household wealth between £3.4m and £5.7m would be taxed at 1%; between £5.7m and £18.2m at 5%; and above £18.2m at 10%. For example, this means that a household that owns £4m would only pay £6,000 a year – 1% of the £600,000 they own above the £3.4m cut off. Anyone below the £3.4m mark, would not pay an extra penny.

Is there anything wrong with that definition? Just because something is hard to define doesn't mean you can't define it, surely?

I suppose that if someone is of the opinion (as I see implied earlier in the thread) that ALL wealth taxation is unfair, theft, Communist, etc. then the entire purpose of such a definition is pointless. I think you'd have to be pretty weird to think that society would be better off without taxation though.

[tjh290633]

I think that is the crux of the matter. Your and my definition of rich might be somewhat different to a Labour politician. I'm not even sure if they could agree among themselves what that starting level would be.

As the first reply to the OP said, it's possible to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation:

... the top 1% (ie, those with accumulated wealth of more than £3.4m) .... Household wealth between £3.4m and £5.7m would be taxed at 1%; between £5.7m and £18.2m at 5%; and above £18.2m at 10%. For example, this means that a household that owns £4m would only pay £6,000 a year – 1% of the £600,000 they own above the £3.4m cut off. Anyone below the £3.4m mark, would not pay an extra penny.

Is there anything wrong with that definition? Just because something is hard to define doesn't mean you can't define it, surely?

I suppose that if someone is of the opinion (as I see implied earlier in the thread) that ALL wealth taxation is unfair, theft, Communist, etc. then the entire purpose of such a definition is pointless. I think you'd have to be pretty weird to think that society would be better off without taxation though.

Is there anything wrong with that definition? There is a lot wrong with the suggested tax rates. Apart from the lowest rate they are confiscatory. It's a clear message to those liable to have to pay those rates to leave the country. For anyone with wealth in those ranges, the tax can only be paid by disposing of assets, which may not be practicable. How do you dispose of part of a stately home? If you had a large farm, what do you do? If you own a share of a family firm which is not quoted, what then?

Totally impracticable

TJH

[Nimrod103]

I think that is the crux of the matter. Your and my definition of rich might be somewhat different to a Labour politician. I'm not even sure if they could agree among themselves what that starting level would be.

As the first reply to the OP said, it's possible to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation:

... the top 1% (ie, those with accumulated wealth of more than £3.4m) .... Household wealth between £3.4m and £5.7m would be taxed at 1%; between £5.7m and £18.2m at 5%; and above £18.2m at 10%. For example, this means that a household that owns £4m would only pay £6,000 a year – 1% of the £600,000 they own above the £3.4m cut off. Anyone below the £3.4m mark, would not pay an extra penny.

Is there anything wrong with that definition? Just because something is hard to define doesn't mean you can't define it, surely?

I suppose that if someone is of the opinion (as I see implied earlier in the thread) that ALL wealth taxation is unfair, theft, Communist, etc. then the entire purpose of such a definition is pointless. I think you'd have to be pretty weird to think that society would be better off without taxation though.

It is easy to define "wealth" with any number you care to pull out of the air. What matters is what level the incoming Labour government will define wealth as. Since the whole point of a new tax is to raise as much as possible without people going to huge lengths to avoid it, it will almost certainly have to be set at a small percentage of a very large number of people. The more concentrated a wealth tax, the more likely the richest will just move away. But then if it is set at a small percentage affecting a very large number of people - say put it at 1% of estates over £1 million - then the cost of assessing the value of estates every year, with all the attendant argument and legal cases, it soon becomes quite an inefficient way of raising money. All IMHO. Anyway we have a wealth tax already, in IHT.

[Urbandreamer]

I suppose that if someone is of the opinion (as I see implied earlier in the thread) that ALL wealth taxation is unfair, theft, Communist, etc. then the entire purpose of such a definition is pointless. I think you'd have to be pretty weird to think that society would be better off without taxation though.

It might be worth looking at the history of taxation, before making such claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ed_Kingdom

Yes, taxation does have a long history, not only in this country. No, it's not a unchanging history.

What you describe is called progressive taxation and was introduced in the form of income tax to pay for war under Pitt the younger in 1798. It has been abolished and reintroduced since.

How did the country cope before that? Well taxation was upon trade and luxuries. I.E customs duty and window tax.

I really question your conflation of a tax targeting the rich (one group of the populous), with abandoning all taxation. To me it's a straw man argument.

FWIW, I am one of those who seriously questions if tax is theft.

It is after all compulsory and there is no choice upon how it is spent. Is it "fair" to tax the very poorest (VAT)? Did everyone agree to pay for HS2, or to abandon it? What of the Iraq war, remember the origins of progressive taxation was to pay for war. Of course such considerations are not about "the rich", so presumably are off topic for this thread or apparently the definition that you wish us to adopt. Which begs the question of why you brought such questions up.

[Nimrod103]

I suppose that if someone is of the opinion (as I see implied earlier in the thread) that ALL wealth taxation is unfair, theft, Communist, etc. then the entire purpose of such a definition is pointless. I think you'd have to be pretty weird to think that society would be better off without taxation though.

It might be worth looking at the history of taxation, before making such claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ed_Kingdom

Yes, taxation does have a long history, not only in this country. No, it's not a unchanging history.

Taxation has a long history. Without it the Nativity story would have started somewhat differently. But these early taxes were levied on everyone (every male at least), but as the Sheriff of Nottingham discovered, they were widely resented.

[Lootman]

now a resident of probably the most southerly of the post industrial apocalypse towns - Stoke.

Wolverhampton is fairly grim and dire, and a little south of Stoke.

[Gerry557]

I think that is the crux of the matter. Your and my definition of rich might be somewhat different to a Labour politician. I'm not even sure if they could agree among themselves what that starting level would be.

As the first reply to the OP said, it's possible to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation:

... the top 1% (ie, those with accumulated wealth of more than £3.4m) .... Household wealth between £3.4m and £5.7m would be taxed at 1%; between £5.7m and £18.2m at 5%; and above £18.2m at 10%. For example, this means that a household that owns £4m would only pay £6,000 a year – 1% of the £600,000 they own above the £3.4m cut off. Anyone below the £3.4m mark, would not pay an extra penny.

Is there anything wrong with that definition? Just because something is hard to define doesn't mean you can't define it, surely?

I suppose that if someone is of the opinion (as I see implied earlier in the thread) that ALL wealth taxation is unfair, theft, Communist, etc. then the entire purpose of such a definition is pointless. I think you'd have to be pretty weird to think that society would be better off without taxation though.

Those figures were picked from a range of studies and as you move up the table it was 10% which adds to to a tidy sum. How did you come to the conclusion that one would get picked above the others.

From memory, that one resulted in the richer ones on the list as more likely to move away. The one seen as less likely to see too much avoidance started at a much lower level and encompassed a lot more people.

I might go as far as saying that the first version was probably unfair and punitive higher up the scale even though I'm unlikely to be paying it. We'll not until the rates keep getting lowered as the tax collected falls