Discussion
Because covid, this is apparently "fair"
https://www.ukwealth.tax/
The entire debt has been mopped up by QE, so it is hard to see how this can be justified on grounds of fairness.
Taxation of wealth is effectively double taxation. Typical cynicism in the reporting of this as well. It is not 1%, it is 1% for five years i.e. 5%. And of course, once they start down this line, the politicians can be trusted to stop after 5 years...
With a straight face, they also justify this approach by saying there is considerable public support. Well, I for one am shocked that people will vote for moar free stuff at the expense of others.
Can you imagine the state apparatus that would have to be assembled to value wealth? People snooping around your affairs, threats of criminal penalties for non-disclosure, etc, etc. Never will rolexes and artwork become more in demand.
The rich will leave and the middle classes will be left to pay.
No attempt is made to address what will be done with the additional revenue raised. And of course, we can trust the state to spend our money wisely.
Frankly, they can foxtrot oscar with all of this.
https://www.ukwealth.tax/
The entire debt has been mopped up by QE, so it is hard to see how this can be justified on grounds of fairness.
Taxation of wealth is effectively double taxation. Typical cynicism in the reporting of this as well. It is not 1%, it is 1% for five years i.e. 5%. And of course, once they start down this line, the politicians can be trusted to stop after 5 years...
With a straight face, they also justify this approach by saying there is considerable public support. Well, I for one am shocked that people will vote for moar free stuff at the expense of others.
Can you imagine the state apparatus that would have to be assembled to value wealth? People snooping around your affairs, threats of criminal penalties for non-disclosure, etc, etc. Never will rolexes and artwork become more in demand.
The rich will leave and the middle classes will be left to pay.
No attempt is made to address what will be done with the additional revenue raised. And of course, we can trust the state to spend our money wisely.
Frankly, they can foxtrot oscar with all of this.
There was a piece on the BBC site about the same.
No real signs it will form govt policy.
The big issue on this is the definition of "wealth". It's being sold in these papers as impacting next to nobody...but the second it draws in zero extra tax the limits will lower, and lower, and lower....
Govt need to pull the tooth if they believe a serious uptick in revenue is required. They need to invest massively in things that will raise GDP and in the meantime everyone, every single person in the country, needs to contribute.
No real signs it will form govt policy.
The big issue on this is the definition of "wealth". It's being sold in these papers as impacting next to nobody...but the second it draws in zero extra tax the limits will lower, and lower, and lower....
Govt need to pull the tooth if they believe a serious uptick in revenue is required. They need to invest massively in things that will raise GDP and in the meantime everyone, every single person in the country, needs to contribute.
Murph7355 said:
There was a piece on the BBC site about the same.
No real signs it will form govt policy.
The big issue on this is the definition of "wealth". It's being sold in these papers as impacting next to nobody...but the second it draws in zero extra tax the limits will lower, and lower, and lower....
Govt need to pull the tooth if they believe a serious uptick in revenue is required. They need to invest massively in things that will raise GDP and in the meantime everyone, every single person in the country, needs to contribute.
Just wait until the BBC luvies work out that their £40k pension is actually valued at over £2m...No real signs it will form govt policy.
The big issue on this is the definition of "wealth". It's being sold in these papers as impacting next to nobody...but the second it draws in zero extra tax the limits will lower, and lower, and lower....
Govt need to pull the tooth if they believe a serious uptick in revenue is required. They need to invest massively in things that will raise GDP and in the meantime everyone, every single person in the country, needs to contribute.
Que the mass campaign to exclude pension provision for "key" workers on grounds of "fairness".
Deathmole said:
100% IHT by the end of the decade IMO
Pop your clogs, the job lot goes to the government, cash, assets, house, the lot
Capable of being avoided in most instances by lifetime transfers, etc. People will also buy moveable assets which ultimately will be concealed. Pop your clogs, the job lot goes to the government, cash, assets, house, the lot
I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
fesuvious said:
I've written on here before, they'll go for council tax.
Expect additional 'super' bands. Totally separate rate based upon value.
Value - sold/bought within last 3 years or average value within the postcode (or some such shizzle).
House of undisputed value over £10m then expect £2000 per month, then £5m half that, and over £2.5m half again.
No exemptions nor exceptions. Empty, full, rented, AirB, it matters not a jot.
Hmm. Not so sure - would affect the South East disproportionately. Bands would have to vary by region and would mean that someone with a £500k house in the north could end up paying double or triple. Expect additional 'super' bands. Totally separate rate based upon value.
Value - sold/bought within last 3 years or average value within the postcode (or some such shizzle).
House of undisputed value over £10m then expect £2000 per month, then £5m half that, and over £2.5m half again.
No exemptions nor exceptions. Empty, full, rented, AirB, it matters not a jot.
For this to work, council tax would have to increase across all bands and not just at the top. That's a political problem.
ant1973 said:
Capable of being avoided in most instances by lifetime transfers, etc. People will also buy moveable assets which ultimately will be concealed.
I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
Agree totally.I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
In theory the Tories are about small govt. It's one of the biggest reasons I voted for them. I'm happy with tax rises to pay for essentials as long as when extra is needed it is done equitably and not Corbyn-style. But I want to be seeing clear evidence that they are also looking to scale back scope to "essentials". We have strayed a long way from that, for which I lay the blame at Blair/Brown's door.
Fauxsterity was looking like rowing back on that which was more than fine by me...but then the Tories buckled. And Sunak's manoeuvres have been far from impressive IMO.
This will be the barometer for me over the next couple of years.
They should do some of the more obvious stuff first - big hike in stamp duty and council taxes for non doms / foreign owners.
If you want to own property here but not live here then that should cost.
They would need to come up with something clever to deal with corporate ownership of residential property but it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man....
If you want to own property here but not live here then that should cost.
They would need to come up with something clever to deal with corporate ownership of residential property but it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man....
Murph7355 said:
Deathmole said:
100% IHT by the end of the decade IMO
Pop your clogs, the job lot goes to the government, cash, assets, house, the lot
No chance IMO.Pop your clogs, the job lot goes to the government, cash, assets, house, the lot
Also impacts more than just the mega-wealthy.
Taxing wealth always seems counter intuitive to me. The government encourages you to save (for retirement/emergencies etc) and to buy a house, and then taxes you for doing just that.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 9th December 11:51
ant1973 said:
Because covid, this is apparently "fair"
https://www.ukwealth.tax/
The entire debt has been mopped up by QE, so it is hard to see how this can be justified on grounds of fairness.
Taxation of wealth is effectively double taxation. Typical cynicism in the reporting of this as well. It is not 1%, it is 1% for five years i.e. 5%. And of course, once they start down this line, the politicians can be trusted to stop after 5 years...
With a straight face, they also justify this approach by saying there is considerable public support. Well, I for one am shocked that people will vote for moar free stuff at the expense of others.
Can you imagine the state apparatus that would have to be assembled to value wealth? People snooping around your affairs, threats of criminal penalties for non-disclosure, etc, etc. Never will rolexes and artwork become more in demand.
The rich will leave and the middle classes will be left to pay.
No attempt is made to address what will be done with the additional revenue raised. And of course, we can trust the state to spend our money wisely.
Frankly, they can foxtrot oscar with all of this.
This is another quango plonker group talking out of their arses as usual.https://www.ukwealth.tax/
The entire debt has been mopped up by QE, so it is hard to see how this can be justified on grounds of fairness.
Taxation of wealth is effectively double taxation. Typical cynicism in the reporting of this as well. It is not 1%, it is 1% for five years i.e. 5%. And of course, once they start down this line, the politicians can be trusted to stop after 5 years...
With a straight face, they also justify this approach by saying there is considerable public support. Well, I for one am shocked that people will vote for moar free stuff at the expense of others.
Can you imagine the state apparatus that would have to be assembled to value wealth? People snooping around your affairs, threats of criminal penalties for non-disclosure, etc, etc. Never will rolexes and artwork become more in demand.
The rich will leave and the middle classes will be left to pay.
No attempt is made to address what will be done with the additional revenue raised. And of course, we can trust the state to spend our money wisely.
Frankly, they can foxtrot oscar with all of this.
God knows how they find the money to put their minds to such nonsense all day.
- If* the rich leave and the middle class pay, then the take will be about 10% or less of the proposed.
So it won't happen.
So stop worrying.
They'll do what they always do. Taxes up a bit more. Print money. Do more QE. Worry about it tomorrow.
Making a big line in the sand will just cause law of unintended consequences to invoke itself and it'd be uncontrolled chaos.
Remember government employees/MPs etc are just doing a job, getting a salary, have a pension etc. They don't want revolution. They want the status quo.
Mr Whippy said:
ant1973 said:
Because covid, this is apparently "fair"
https://www.ukwealth.tax/
The entire debt has been mopped up by QE, so it is hard to see how this can be justified on grounds of fairness.
Taxation of wealth is effectively double taxation. Typical cynicism in the reporting of this as well. It is not 1%, it is 1% for five years i.e. 5%. And of course, once they start down this line, the politicians can be trusted to stop after 5 years...
With a straight face, they also justify this approach by saying there is considerable public support. Well, I for one am shocked that people will vote for moar free stuff at the expense of others.
Can you imagine the state apparatus that would have to be assembled to value wealth? People snooping around your affairs, threats of criminal penalties for non-disclosure, etc, etc. Never will rolexes and artwork become more in demand.
The rich will leave and the middle classes will be left to pay.
No attempt is made to address what will be done with the additional revenue raised. And of course, we can trust the state to spend our money wisely.
Frankly, they can foxtrot oscar with all of this.
This is another quango plonker group talking out of their arses as usual.https://www.ukwealth.tax/
The entire debt has been mopped up by QE, so it is hard to see how this can be justified on grounds of fairness.
Taxation of wealth is effectively double taxation. Typical cynicism in the reporting of this as well. It is not 1%, it is 1% for five years i.e. 5%. And of course, once they start down this line, the politicians can be trusted to stop after 5 years...
With a straight face, they also justify this approach by saying there is considerable public support. Well, I for one am shocked that people will vote for moar free stuff at the expense of others.
Can you imagine the state apparatus that would have to be assembled to value wealth? People snooping around your affairs, threats of criminal penalties for non-disclosure, etc, etc. Never will rolexes and artwork become more in demand.
The rich will leave and the middle classes will be left to pay.
No attempt is made to address what will be done with the additional revenue raised. And of course, we can trust the state to spend our money wisely.
Frankly, they can foxtrot oscar with all of this.
God knows how they find the money to put their minds to such nonsense all day.
- If* the rich leave and the middle class pay, then the take will be about 10% or less of the proposed.
So it won't happen.
So stop worrying.
They'll do what they always do. Taxes up a bit more. Print money. Do more QE. Worry about it tomorrow.
Making a big line in the sand will just cause law of unintended consequences to invoke itself and it'd be uncontrolled chaos.
Remember government employees/MPs etc are just doing a job, getting a salary, have a pension etc. They don't want revolution. They want the status quo.
pquinn said:
Deathmole said:
100% IHT by the end of the decade IMO
Pop your clogs, the job lot goes to the government, cash, assets, house, the lot
I'd burn the lot if that was the situation.Pop your clogs, the job lot goes to the government, cash, assets, house, the lot
Then gov would lose revenue on IHT.
The reality is these punitive taxes are a punitive source of income.
But pushing them to extremes only nets a tiny amount in the big picture because behaviour can change.
Ie, gift to annual allowance or live longer than 7yrs and you have no IHT at all.
But you can’t just stop working and paying income tax.
Mr Whippy said:
This is another quango plonker group talking out of their arses as usual.
God knows how they find the money to put their minds to such nonsense all day.
So it won't happen.
So stop worrying.
They'll do what they always do. Taxes up a bit more. Print money. Do more QE. Worry about it tomorrow.
Making a big line in the sand will just cause law of unintended consequences to invoke itself and it'd be uncontrolled chaos.
Remember government employees/MPs etc are just doing a job, getting a salary, have a pension etc. They don't want revolution. They want the status quo.
Is that what you're proposing?God knows how they find the money to put their minds to such nonsense all day.
- If* the rich leave and the middle class pay, then the take will be about 10% or less of the proposed.
So it won't happen.
So stop worrying.
They'll do what they always do. Taxes up a bit more. Print money. Do more QE. Worry about it tomorrow.
Making a big line in the sand will just cause law of unintended consequences to invoke itself and it'd be uncontrolled chaos.
Remember government employees/MPs etc are just doing a job, getting a salary, have a pension etc. They don't want revolution. They want the status quo.
ant1973 said:
Capable of being avoided in most instances by lifetime transfers, etc. People will also buy moveable assets which ultimately will be concealed.
I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
I’m not sure it’s quite so easy to reduce your IHT bill as you make it sound, for most it would involve transferring ownership of their prime asset (home) to the kids and renting it back. It’s a process fraught with issues and not one that many would undertake. I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
I think we will see a jump in IHT and CGT, the super rich will not be affected but comfy middle englanders will pick up the tab as usual.
ant1973 said:
The top 1% pay 29% of income tax. Imagine if a small proportion leave in response to the wealth tax? That would be an unfortunate, unintended consequence...
Every time something big happens this gets trotted out, banking crisis, Brexit, tax rises etc, etc. Yet to see it happen!Blue62 said:
ant1973 said:
Capable of being avoided in most instances by lifetime transfers, etc. People will also buy moveable assets which ultimately will be concealed.
I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
I’m not sure it’s quite so easy to reduce your IHT bill as you make it sound, for most it would involve transferring ownership of their prime asset (home) to the kids and renting it back. It’s a process fraught with issues and not one that many would undertake. I think the bigger issue in all of this is the role the state plays and what it should or should not be involved in. At some point there needs to be the grown up discussion of what is immediately affordable.
If we cannot improve our productivity problem in this country, we are headed for long term decline. Who pays for what and in what proportion is a sideshow.
I think we will see a jump in IHT and CGT, the super rich will not be affected but comfy middle englanders will pick up the tab as usual.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff