Fixing the UK - Tax

[Mrr T]

While I accept there are lots of things which could be improved in the UK. One of the keys, I believe, is a functioning tax system. The below is an interview by a right wing, economically, think tank and a labour member who is a tax expert.

I know It's long but its well worth watching.

https://insider.iea.org.uk/p/tax-expert-dan-neidle...

[wyson]

I saw that. Its quite interesting how he thinks simplifying the existing tax system would raise a lot more than a wealth tax, but just isn’t as sexy. Would be interesting to hear what other tax experts have to say.

[Mrr T]

For those put off by the above comment the discussion is about how to improve the tax system to improve economic activity. One of the real take away of the discussion is the broad agreement on how things could be improved while accepting both side might have a different view on rates.

Dan actually says in his view highly paid bankers are not under taxed.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

For those put off by the above comment the discussion is about how to improve the tax system to improve economic activity. One of the real take away of the discussion is the broad agreement on how things could be improved while accepting both side might have a different view on rates.

Dan actually says in his view highly paid bankers are not under taxed.

The notion that "the rich" of any ilk (no need to segregate) pay too little tax is for the birds.

When people trot out "the rich" they usually mean people earning more than them and/or chinless toffs who inherited a pile. Our relationship with wealth and what "earning" means is weird in this country. It feels born of a couple of centuries ago, and really needs a shake.

[DeejRC]

I think simplifying the UK tax system has more or less broad agreement across the board, except for the Treasury who hate, with a passion, anybody else playing in their sandpit.

[Sport_Turismo_GTS]

DeejRC said:

I think simplifying the UK tax system has more or less broad agreement across the board, except for the Treasury who hate, with a passion, anybody else playing in their sandpit.

And the howls of derision from some on the Left, when that simplification means that certain ‘wealthy / high income groups’ might actually benefit from the changes.

[Eric Mc]

Calls for simplifying the tax system have been ongoing for decades. We even had "An Office of Tax Simplification" for over a decade.

Until the Conservatives abolished it.

[gruffalo]

Taxes should be adjusted flat rate no matter what someone's income is.

Secondly we have to stop paying people who do nothing and contribute nothing to society!

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

gruffalo said:

Taxes should be adjusted flat rate no matter what someone's income is.

Secondly we have to stop paying people who do nothing and contribute nothing to society!

would you include the super rich living off a passive income in that second group?

[greygoose]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

gruffalo said:

Taxes should be adjusted flat rate no matter what someone's income is.

Secondly we have to stop paying people who do nothing and contribute nothing to society!

would you include the super rich living off a passive income in that second group?

Or pensioners?

[98elise]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

gruffalo said:

Taxes should be adjusted flat rate no matter what someone's income is.

Secondly we have to stop paying people who do nothing and contribute nothing to society!

would you include the super rich living off a passive income in that second group?

How are "we" paying them?

I've no problem with anyone living off their own money, as long as all taxes due have been paid.

The super rich don't tend to be passive either. How do you think they got rich in the first place?

[LeoSayer]

Dan Neidle talks a lot of sense and has been quite prolific on a lot of podcasts recently.

I agree with him on so many things such as the ridiculous removal of the indexation allowance on CGT and the very high marginal and cliff-edge income tax rates.

Sorting those will go some way to removing disincentives to work and invest and therefore promote growth in the economy.

[BOR]

Pointless tinkering around the edges if you don't have the cock-and-balls to go after millionaires and billionaires who don't pay ANY tax.

We need a world-wide coordinated smack-down on these parasites and those who enable them.

[Sport_Turismo_GTS]

BOR said:

Pointless tinkering around the edges if you don't have the cock-and-balls to go after millionaires and billionaires who don't pay ANY tax.

We need a world-wide coordinated smack-down on these parasites and those who enable them.

Which millionaires and billionaires don’t pay any tax?

[fat80b]

BOR said:

Pointless tinkering around the edges if you don't have the cock-and-balls to go after millionaires and billionaires who don't pay ANY tax.

We need a world-wide coordinated smack-down on these parasites and those who enable them.

Sounds great - Do you have an example of a Millionaire (or Billionaire) who doesn't pay any tax (anywhere). I suspect that even the most aggressive tax avoider pays significantly more tax than the average tax payer ....

[2xChevrons]

98elise said:

How are "we" paying them?

I've no problem with anyone living off their own money, as long as all taxes due have been paid.

The super rich don't tend to be passive either. How do you think they got rich in the first place?

It's money/wealth extracted from us (and society as a whole). That's what profit or return on investment is - you put in '£X', people perform labour to add value, and all being well you get out £'X+y'.

Now, obviously RoI is the incentive to invest, and the reward for risk. But there comes a (subjective) point where the ability to make money without risk or labour from yourself, or money from money, becomes egregious.

And in many cases, against the theory, as rewards go up the risk goes down. Once you have enough wealth that you could not practically spend it on anyone you or your family could possibly need other want during your lifetime, and even the interest earned from your wealth provides a lifestyle free of material want, then there is almost no risk involved in venturing to make even more.

It should be very easier - much easier than it is now -for anyone to make £1 million. It should be easy to make £10 million. It should be harder to make (or, more accurately, keep) £100 million and ideally it would be impossible to keep £1 billion. The incentives and penalties should form an 'overflows where every penny after £1,000,000,000 goes somewhere else. Ideally to the specific people whose labour generated that wealth (now that you've had the reward of [several] lifetimes for enabling it) but also to the society that supported and enabled your success.

There are something like 150 UK billionaires. There should be zero, and there should be 15,000 people who have stepped up, risked, innovated, built, provided a service or good or fulfilled a need, trained and coached and nurtured a fortune of £10,000,000 in their place.

[Lefty]

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

How are "we" paying them?

I've no problem with anyone living off their own money, as long as all taxes due have been paid.

The super rich don't tend to be passive either. How do you think they got rich in the first place?

It's money/wealth extracted from us (and society as a whole). That's what profit or return on investment is - you put in '£X', people perform labour to add value, and all being well you get out £'X+y'.

Now, obviously RoI is the incentive to invest, and the reward for risk. But there comes a (subjective) point where the ability to make money without risk or labour from yourself, or money from money, becomes egregious.

And in many cases, against the theory, as rewards go up the risk goes down. Once you have enough wealth that you could not practically spend it on anyone you or your family could possibly need other want during your lifetime, and even the interest earned from your wealth provides a lifestyle free of material want, then there is almost no risk involved in venturing to make even more.

It should be very easier - much easier than it is now -for anyone to make £1 million. It should be easy to make £10 million. It should be harder to make (or, more accurately, keep) £100 million and ideally it would be impossible to keep £1 billion. The incentives and penalties should form an 'overflows where every penny after £1,000,000,000 goes somewhere else. Ideally to the specific people whose labour generated that wealth (now that you've had the reward of [several] lifetimes for enabling it) but also to the society that supported and enabled your success.

There are something like 150 UK billionaires. There should be zero, and there should be 15,000 people who have stepped up, risked, innovated, built, provided a service or good or fulfilled a need, trained and coached and nurtured a fortune of £10,000,000 in their place.

Your £1m, £10m, £100m and £1b figures are entirely arbitrary.

[s1962a]

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

How are "we" paying them?

I've no problem with anyone living off their own money, as long as all taxes due have been paid.

The super rich don't tend to be passive either. How do you think they got rich in the first place?

It's money/wealth extracted from us (and society as a whole). That's what profit or return on investment is - you put in '£X', people perform labour to add value, and all being well you get out £'X+y'.

Now, obviously RoI is the incentive to invest, and the reward for risk. But there comes a (subjective) point where the ability to make money without risk or labour from yourself, or money from money, becomes egregious.

And in many cases, against the theory, as rewards go up the risk goes down. Once you have enough wealth that you could not practically spend it on anyone you or your family could possibly need other want during your lifetime, and even the interest earned from your wealth provides a lifestyle free of material want, then there is almost no risk involved in venturing to make even more.

It should be very easier - much easier than it is now -for anyone to make £1 million. It should be easy to make £10 million. It should be harder to make (or, more accurately, keep) £100 million and ideally it would be impossible to keep £1 billion. The incentives and penalties should form an 'overflows where every penny after £1,000,000,000 goes somewhere else. Ideally to the specific people whose labour generated that wealth (now that you've had the reward of [several] lifetimes for enabling it) but also to the society that supported and enabled your success.

There are something like 150 UK billionaires. There should be zero, and there should be 15,000 people who have stepped up, risked, innovated, built, provided a service or good or fulfilled a need, trained and coached and nurtured a fortune of £10,000,000 in their place.

are you advocating for a modern day marxism-lite?

[2xChevrons]

Lefty said:

Your £1m, £10m, £100m and £1b figures are entirely arbitrary.

Of course they are - I was being illustrative. It's not a manifesto or a policy document.

I'll stand by the £1bn point though- arbitrary as it is I think there's no ethical, logical or economic reason to justify the existence of billionaires. If you must draw a line of 'how much wealth can one person fairly deserve and safely control?' then it might as well be drawn at £999,999,999.99

s1962a said:

are you advocating for a modern day marxism-lite?

If by 'Marxism-lite' [i.e. not Marxism] you mean 'something akin to the tax setup from 1950s America' then guilty as charged.

If I was a Marxist I wouldn't be advocating capitalism as an engine of economic growth.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 14th July 09:40

[Lefty]

How do you propose to enforce your arbitrary limit? And how will you index it? How do you even define it?

I don’t necessarily disagree with the point that it’s a bit obscene that a very few people have so much wealth but I’m absolutely dead against the idea of trying to take it away from them “just because”. They should be encouraged to be philanthropic but should not be vilified because of financial success.