2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth.
With that and wanting to break up the tech companies, i think even the ultra liberal silicon types might turn into trump supporters if she was picked as dems candidate.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth.
You’d be doing very badly to have no nominal asset growth over 20 years. I expect some with very illiquid assets would struggle to find the cash, but I’m sure the City can innovate to provide the necessary financial products.
2% is high but not catastrophic. 5% would be time to get out.
Off topic, a question for the PB crowd: any recommendations for reasonably priced hotels in central NY - somewhere around the 7th Ave/52nd street area or within easy walking distance?
Thanks.
VM is fine, to avoid clogging up the thread.
I’ve never stayed there but told that the Michelangelo is a little tired but a very solid hotel
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
2 former labour MPs: Roger Casale (Wimbledon, 1997-2015) and Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff Central, 1992-2015) 2 former Labour PPCs: Kate Godfrey (Stafford 2015, but I think she has already defected to LD a few years ago) and Victoria Groulef 1 former Labour MEP: Carole Tongue (80s and 90s)
1 former LD MEP: Diana Wallis (Yorkshire)
2 former Con MPs: Neil Carmichael (Stroud, 2005-15) and Stephen Dorrell (Loughborough/Charnwood 1979-2015)
1 sitting Con MEP: Richard Ashworth
Seems they are heavily into recycling - a pity they couldn't agree a joint list with the Greens!
I see they are running Rachel Johnson in the south west - I presume she didn't think that meant areas with an SW postcode?
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third lost over 20 years.
I am really struggling to understand the new political fascination with ex-mil types. As if it qualifies you for anything but supplying a rich vein of stories that start, "So there I was...
You underestimate the importance of that. My lack of ability to start stories that way is a true hindrance
I'm quite interested in the tone of the Mail Online/Daily Mail towards The Brexit Party - which so far seems fairly supportive. Dacre gave oxygen to Farage, but would happily rip UKIP apart at elections to protect the Tory vote. Grieg is at least a soft Brexit supporter (if not a remainer) yet the Brexit Party (who do seem well organised and quite refreshing to many) are getting some very positive press.
I wonder if The Mail are building them up to tear them down, if Grieg ( a good friend of George Osborne) hates May so much he will support whoever it takes to oust her, or maybe he just sees The BP as a positive step in the realignment of politics.
Maybe it's a bit of "public service broadcasting" to keep the vote with Farage rather than the current BNP-lite incarnation of UKIP.
Though I don't have much time for either, Farage has played a clever game over the years in keeping his fingerprints off most of the racism and loony-right stuff.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I know he won it in 2014 but doesn't Hamilton always underperform at SPOTY unless it's generally a boring year for UK sport? I fully accept that he's a fantastic driver but the worst fashion sense in sport apart, there seems to be a curious hole where a personality should be.
I once sold some old Porsche bits to a guy who works for McLaren F1. He told me LewHam's hair transplant cost 100 grand. #jesuischarles
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however. And perhaps more importantly, no avoidance.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however.
Allowing for that, and Charles’ annual fees, 50% might be about right.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however.
Allowing for that, and Charles’ annual fees, 50% might be about right.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
I know he won it in 2014 but doesn't Hamilton always underperform at SPOTY unless it's generally a boring year for UK sport? I fully accept that he's a fantastic driver but the worst fashion sense in sport apart, there seems to be a curious hole where a personality should be.
I once sold some old Porsche bits to a guy who works for McLaren F1. He told me LewHam's hair transplant cost 100 grand. #jesuischarles
Don’t they have enough old Porsche bits of their own from the 80s ?
Off topic, a question for the PB crowd: any recommendations for reasonably priced hotels in central NY - somewhere around the 7th Ave/52nd street area or within easy walking distance?
Thanks.
VM is fine, to avoid clogging up the thread.
I’ve never stayed there but told that the Michelangelo is a little tired but a very solid hotel
The full CUKTIG list is so Blairite it hurts. Lots of third-sector management types, academy trust chairs, that sort of thing.
I see they are running Donald Tusk's former finance minister second on the list in London behind Esler - why isn't he top of the list as surely he is a stronger sell and there is a large Polish expat vote in the capital?
Its one region where you would expect them to be likely to win a seat.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however. And perhaps more importantly, no avoidance.
2% is effectively going to wipe the return most people make, in real terms. Unless they can afford a wealth manager, in which case not as much.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
They aren't getting paid 2% of their original wealth as a rebate for 20 years and then getting clobbered for their entire previous wealth in 20 years time though ??
I'm quite interested in the tone of the Mail Online/Daily Mail towards The Brexit Party - which so far seems fairly supportive. Dacre gave oxygen to Farage, but would happily rip UKIP apart at elections to protect the Tory vote. Grieg is at least a soft Brexit supporter (if not a remainer) yet the Brexit Party (who do seem well organised and quite refreshing to many) are getting some very positive press.
I wonder if The Mail are building them up to tear them down, if Grieg ( a good friend of George Osborne) hates May so much he will support whoever it takes to oust her, or maybe he just sees The BP as a positive step in the realignment of politics.
The Mail have been pretty friendly to May in the last year but I think even they cannot talk her up at present.
The full CUKTIG list is so Blairite it hurts. Lots of third-sector management types, academy trust chairs, that sort of thing.
And in Simor, Godfrey, Adonis and Esler you've got some of the prominent faces of the FBPE rabble. Plaudits to The Brexit Party for having an impressive range of backgrounds and opinions but also having so many faces that are new to frontline politics. In some ways it's quite similar to what David Cameron was doing a decade ago. Maybe we'll find the next Heidi Allen!
I fully expect some Tory MPs will, in the privacy of the voting booth, opt for the Brexit Party. That will mirror the actions of 50%+ of party members and a very sizeable minority of councillors. Probably not many CCHQ staff though.
Percentage wise you need less there to get an MEP . I’d expect them to get their best share of the vote there.
It would be rather amusing ,given the trouble that the Brexit Party and Changeuk have taken to select candidates , to suddenly discover that the EU elections were not to go ahead!
Percentage wise you need less there to get an MEP . I’d expect them to get their best share of the vote there.
It would be rather amusing ,given the trouble that the Brexit Party and Changeuk have taken to select candidates , to suddenly discover that the EU elections were not to go ahead!
Would be worth it for the looks on their faces alone
Percentage wise you need less there to get an MEP . I’d expect them to get their best share of the vote there.
It would be rather amusing ,given the trouble that the Brexit Party and Changeuk have taken to select candidates , to suddenly discover that the EU elections were not to go ahead!
Jacek Rostowski who is the 2nd candidate under Esler for CUK was 2nd in command to Donald Tusk in the Polish government. Talk about random.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
They aren't getting paid 2% of their original wealth as a rebate for 20 years and then getting clobbered for their entire previous wealth in 20 years time though ??
All this of course assumes no changes in behaviour over time, nor the rate of an established tax being jacked by populist politicians - “Vote for me and I’ll make it 5%”. What’s likely in practice is a huge increase in complicated trusts and charitable vehicles.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third lost over 20 years.
I am really struggling to understand the new political fascination with ex-mil types. As if it qualifies you for anything but supplying a rich vein of stories that start, "So there I was...
You underestimate the importance of that. My lack of ability to start stories that way is a true hindrance
It's easy!
"So there I was, sitting on my sofa, watching this bloke and he did..."
The full CUKTIG list is so Blairite it hurts. Lots of third-sector management types, academy trust chairs, that sort of thing.
I see they are running Donald Tusk's former finance minister second on the list in London behind Esler - why isn't he top of the list as surely he is a stronger sell and there is a large Polish expat vote in the capital?
Its one region where you would expect them to be likely to win a seat.
Perhaps because they expect to win one seat. And have the second as a stretch target? Or maybe they haven't thought it through?
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
They aren't getting paid 2% of their original wealth as a rebate for 20 years and then getting clobbered for their entire previous wealth in 20 years time though ??
All this of course assumes no changes in behaviour over time, nor the rate of an established tax being jacked by populist politicians - “Vote for me and I’ll make it 5%”. What’s likely in practice is a huge increase in complicated trusts and charitable vehicles.
If I had £100 and I now have £67, I've lost a third of its original value - but half of its new value.
Change U.K. have pissed me off with their inability to work with the LDs. Strategic blunder of the highest order.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however. And perhaps more importantly, no avoidance.
2% is effectively going to wipe the return most people make, in real terms. Unless they can afford a wealth manager, in which case not as much.
So strangely backwards.
Warren's plan starts at 50 million dollars, so the people liable to pay it can probably afford to get someone to advise
I find her so fascinating, especially given she was a Republican for many years.
To me, she seems like one of the only politicians who's been advocating genuine social democracy in recent years (as opposed to either full-fat socialism or "centrism", aka neoliberalism plus virtue-signalling). She obviously believes in a strong private-sector, even if she thinks letting certain companies get too big is no good for anyone (especially for small businesses who get totally crowded out). And she doesn't believe in total equality of outcome, she thinks there will always and should always be some people who are wealthier than others, even though she thinks the proportions should be much smaller than now. That politics appeals to me, but maybe it's too wishy-washy to appeal to a lot of people right now, hence her polling.
Caption : "You are really in my party? Amazing amazing. Alan Sked says he recalls me saying that n.., I mean people of "diverse backgrounds", would not vote for UKIP..... well that was then, amazing amazing, what will Vlad say when I tell him?"
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however. And perhaps more importantly, no avoidance.
2% is effectively going to wipe the return most people make, in real terms. Unless they can afford a wealth manager, in which case not as much.
So strangely backwards.
Politically this hinges on the definition of 'wealthiest families'. When people say this, they think of the very richest people - whether old money or dot-com billionaire. Few people think of themselves as the 'wealthiest families' - yet to generate worthwhile amounts, that term has to encompass more than a few people - especially when those with the wherewithall take the Jimmy Carr route.
It therefore creates a fear. Many people think: "I'm not wealthy, but I am well off (through my own hard work). What happens when the pips have been squeezed out of the rich and they start looking a little bit lower?"
As such, it's quite easy to attack - and more so in the US than over here.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
Sadly they are charging you not giving you the money! It should be (0.98^20) - 1 per @Richard_Nabavi
Change U.K. have pissed me off with their inability to work with the LDs. Strategic blunder of the highest order.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
Gives this PB Tory something to smile about, in an otherwise dark and gloomy time.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
Sadly they are charging you not giving you the money! It should be (0.98^20) - 1 per @Richard_Nabavi
Yeah yeah, I got it the wrong way around. Not enough coffee today clearly.
I know he won it in 2014 but doesn't Hamilton always underperform at SPOTY unless it's generally a boring year for UK sport? I fully accept that he's a fantastic driver but the worst fashion sense in sport apart, there seems to be a curious hole where a personality should be.
I once sold some old Porsche bits to a guy who works for McLaren F1. He told me LewHam's hair transplant cost 100 grand. #jesuischarles
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
The full CUKTIG list is so Blairite it hurts. Lots of third-sector management types, academy trust chairs, that sort of thing.
And in Simor, Godfrey, Adonis and Esler you've got some of the prominent faces of the FBPE rabble. Plaudits to The Brexit Party for having an impressive range of backgrounds and opinions but also having so many faces that are new to frontline politics. In some ways it's quite similar to what David Cameron was doing a decade ago. Maybe we'll find the next Heidi Allen!
A range of opinions? You are having a laugh. The BP simply by-passes the N for Nationalist in the middle. Another bunch of swivel eyed fanatics with a few token gullible "respectable" people thrown in to draw attention away from the nasty bunch of dangerous headbangers that they are; a party headed by man even more narcissistic than Boris Johnson and who is an apologist for Vladimir Putin .
Change U.K. have pissed me off with their inability to work with the LDs. Strategic blunder of the highest order.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
Coming at it from the opposing point of view, I think you're entirely correct about that.
The full CUKTIG list is so Blairite it hurts. Lots of third-sector management types, academy trust chairs, that sort of thing.
And in Simor, Godfrey, Adonis and Esler you've got some of the prominent faces of the FBPE rabble. Plaudits to The Brexit Party for having an impressive range of backgrounds and opinions but also having so many faces that are new to frontline politics. In some ways it's quite similar to what David Cameron was doing a decade ago. Maybe we'll find the next Heidi Allen!
A range of opinions? You are having a laugh. The BP simply by-passes the N for Nationalist in the middle. Another bunch of swivel eyed fanatics with a few token gullible "respectable" people thrown in to draw attention away from the nasty bunch of dangerous headbangers that they are; a party headed by man even more narcissistic than Boris Johnson and who is an apologist for Vladimir Putin .
I thought George Osborne had retired from politics
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
They aren't getting paid 2% of their original wealth as a rebate for 20 years and then getting clobbered for their entire previous wealth in 20 years time though ??
All this of course assumes no changes in behaviour over time, nor the rate of an established tax being jacked by populist politicians - “Vote for me and I’ll make it 5%”. What’s likely in practice is a huge increase in complicated trusts and charitable vehicles.
If I had £100 and I now have £67, I've lost a third of its original value - but half of its new value.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
The problem is that they are switching investible capital into revenue spending.
So, effectively, they are reducing the stock of investible capital which will make the country worse off over time.
Fundamentally, government redistribution/social spending should be funded from revenue based taxes (income tax, sales tax, profits tax, etc) while government service provision should be funded by flattish/non-profit based taxes.
Wealth is better taxed on the income that it generates than on the capital itself.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
Then you get the question of why the super-rich should bother to generate income.
My grandfather (he was a QC so well off rather than super-rich) was paying 106% income tax at one point which was a disincentive to earn money!
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
They aren't getting paid 2% of their original wealth as a rebate for 20 years and then getting clobbered for their entire previous wealth in 20 years time though ??
All this of course assumes no changes in behaviour over time, nor the rate of an established tax being jacked by populist politicians - “Vote for me and I’ll make it 5%”. What’s likely in practice is a huge increase in complicated trusts and charitable vehicles.
If I had £100 and I now have £67, I've lost a third of its original value - but half of its new value.
Though I think the former is more natural.
Serves you right for following Dancer’s F1 tips
That’s a bit harsh, the week after he had an 8/1 tip come in.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
The problem is that they are switching investible capital into revenue spending.
So, effectively, they are reducing the stock of investible capital which will make the country worse off over time.
Fundamentally, government redistribution/social spending should be funded from revenue based taxes (income tax, sales tax, profits tax, etc) while government service provision should be funded by flattish/non-profit based taxes.
Wealth is better taxed on the income that it generates than on the capital itself.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however. And perhaps more importantly, no avoidance.
2% is effectively going to wipe the return most people make, in real terms. Unless they can afford a wealth manager, in which case not as much.
So strangely backwards.
4% + RPI is generally reckoned to be averagely doable.
Change U.K. have pissed me off with their inability to work with the LDs. Strategic blunder of the highest order.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
Indeed. And in that context it is surprising and disappointing that they have said they would not support a VONC. Such a vote might well put a further spanner in the Brexit works, TIGs position seems to be that their careers come before the national interest. Just like the old politics they claim to be so strongly opposed to.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
Then you get the question of why the super-rich should bother to generate income.
My grandfather (he was a QC so well off rather than super-rich) was paying 106% income tax at one point which was a disincentive to earn money!
Er... did it stop him?
He spent more of his time writing theological tomes and corresponding with ++Cantab as a direct result!
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
(1.02^20) -1 = 0.5 So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
They aren't getting paid 2% of their original wealth as a rebate for 20 years and then getting clobbered for their entire previous wealth in 20 years time though ??
All this of course assumes no changes in behaviour over time, nor the rate of an established tax being jacked by populist politicians - “Vote for me and I’ll make it 5%”. What’s likely in practice is a huge increase in complicated trusts and charitable vehicles.
If I had £100 and I now have £67, I've lost a third of its original value - but half of its new value.
Though I think the former is more natural.
Serves you right for following Dancer’s F1 tips
That’s a bit harsh, the week after he had an 8/1 tip come in.
It’s unreasonably harsh, given that the last tip I followed was a clear winner. But I couldn’t resist.
Change U.K. have pissed me off with their inability to work with the LDs. Strategic blunder of the highest order.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
Indeed. And in that context it is surprising and disappointing that they have said they would not support a VONC. Such a vote might well put a further spanner in the Brexit works, TIGs position seems to be that their careers come before the national interest. Just like the old politics they claim to be so strongly opposed to.
They sacrificed their careers . They are now fearful of losing their seats, clearly, but careerists that does not make them.
Change U.K. have pissed me off with their inability to work with the LDs. Strategic blunder of the highest order.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
Indeed. And in that context it is surprising and disappointing that they have said they would not support a VONC. Such a vote might well put a further spanner in the Brexit works, TIGs position seems to be that their careers come before the national interest. Just like the old politics they claim to be so strongly opposed to.
Not only that, but hypocrisy is in their very name. Should be NoChangeUK.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
The problem is that they are switching investible capital into revenue spending.
So, effectively, they are reducing the stock of investible capital which will make the country worse off over time.
Fundamentally, government redistribution/social spending should be funded from revenue based taxes (income tax, sales tax, profits tax, etc) while government service provision should be funded by flattish/non-profit based taxes.
Wealth is better taxed on the income that it generates than on the capital itself.
Better for whom?
Better for everyone, in my view.
If you convert wealth to revenue you end up with no assets. It's better to leave surplus assets as income generating.
If you want to redistribute wealth just do it - take a slice and park it into a sovereign wealth fund or something.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
Assuming no investment return on the wealth, however. And perhaps more importantly, no avoidance.
2% is effectively going to wipe the return most people make, in real terms. Unless they can afford a wealth manager, in which case not as much.
So strangely backwards.
4% + RPI is generally reckoned to be averagely doable.
Quite. The FTSE 100 returns more than 4% in dividends alone at the moment before including any capital growth.
Anyone with $50m is probably making $2m+inflation by simply doing sweet FA. Some of that will be income and taxed, some capital appreciation and taxed but at $50m most will have found ways to avoid some of that.
I haven't seen the detail of Warren's proposal but there has to be a case for an annual tax on wealth to replace IHT and CGT.
Stephen Dorrell Charlotte Gath Peter Widing Amrik Kandola Joanna McKenna Victor Odusanya Lucinda Epson
SW
Rachel Johnson Jim Godfrey Oli Middleton Matthew Hooberman Liz Sewell Crispin Hunt
NW
Andrea Cooper Daniel Price Arun Banerji Michael Taylor Philippa Olive Victoria Desmond Andrew Graystone Elizabeth Knight
NE
Frances Weetman Penny Hawley Kathryn Heywood
Yorkshire
Diana Wallis Juliet Lodge Stephen Bow Joshua Malkin Ros McMullen Steve Wilson
Wales
Jon Owen Jones June Davies Matthew Paul Sally Stephenson
Scotland
Joseph Russo David McDonald Kate Forman Peter Griffiths Heather Astbury Catherine Edgeworth
London
Esler Jan Vincent-Rostowki Carole Tongue Annabel Mullin Karen Newman Ali Sadjady Naiery Nora Mulready Jessica Simor
South East
Richard Ashworth Victoria Groufel Warren Morgan Eleonor FUller Robin Baxtor Nicholas Mazzei Sazana Carp Phil Murphy Heather Allen Diane Yeo
East
Emma Taylor Neil Carmichael Bhavna Joshi Michelle de Vries Amanda Gummer Thomas Graham Roger Casale
East Midlands
Kate Godfrey Joan Laplana Narinder Sharma Pankajhmar Gulab Emma Jane Manley
For a moment, I thought that was Andrew Cooper in the North West.
I'm guessing that Peter Griffiths is not the former MP for Portsmouth North and Smethwick.
In the South East I think I will stick with the LibDems. Voting to rescue a Tory MEP they recently threw out from their group isn’t my idea of Change UK.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
Surely the whole point is to shrink the assets of the super rich, and to redistribute?
The problem is that they are switching investible capital into revenue spending.
So, effectively, they are reducing the stock of investible capital which will make the country worse off over time.
Fundamentally, government redistribution/social spending should be funded from revenue based taxes (income tax, sales tax, profits tax, etc) while government service provision should be funded by flattish/non-profit based taxes.
Wealth is better taxed on the income that it generates than on the capital itself.
Better for whom?
Better for everyone, in my view.
If you convert wealth to revenue you end up with no assets. It's better to leave surplus assets as income generating.
If you want to redistribute wealth just do it - take a slice and park it into a sovereign wealth fund or something.
Your second paragraph is certainly sound advice for individuals fortunate enough to have the assets in the first place; I was more interested in what was best for the country.
I suspect the next Labour government will be introducing a wealth tax.
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
I can't see how the average return on wealth over an extended time frame can beat growth in GDP (possibly a ratio of the GDP for multiple national economies) plus inflation rate. An individual can do better and can also do worse but the average is constrained.
Comments
2% is high but not catastrophic. 5% would be time to get out.
https://www.michelangelohotel.com/en/specials/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIk_-omZvm4QIVmK3tCh09RAjiEAAYASACEgIVbPD_BwE
Stephen Dorrell
Charlotte Gath
Peter Widing
Amrik Kandola
Joanna McKenna
Victor Odusanya
Lucinda Epson
SW
Rachel Johnson
Jim Godfrey
Oli Middleton
Matthew Hooberman
Liz Sewell
Crispin Hunt
NW
Andrea Cooper
Daniel Price
Arun Banerji
Michael Taylor
Philippa Olive
Victoria Desmond
Andrew Graystone
Elizabeth Knight
NE
Frances Weetman
Penny Hawley
Kathryn Heywood
Yorkshire
Diana Wallis
Juliet Lodge
Stephen Bow
Joshua Malkin
Ros McMullen
Steve Wilson
Wales
Jon Owen Jones
June Davies
Matthew Paul
Sally Stephenson
Scotland
Joseph Russo
David McDonald
Kate Forman
Peter Griffiths
Heather Astbury
Catherine Edgeworth
London
Esler
Jan Vincent-Rostowki
Carole Tongue
Annabel Mullin
Karen Newman
Ali Sadjady Naiery
Nora Mulready
Jessica Simor
South East
Richard Ashworth
Victoria Groufel
Warren Morgan
Eleonor FUller
Robin Baxtor
Nicholas Mazzei
Sazana Carp
Phil Murphy
Heather Allen
Diane Yeo
East
Emma Taylor
Neil Carmichael
Bhavna Joshi
Michelle de Vries
Amanda Gummer
Thomas Graham
Roger Casale
East Midlands
Kate Godfrey
Joan Laplana
Narinder Sharma
Pankajhmar Gulab
Emma Jane Manley
I see they are running Rachel Johnson in the south west - I presume she didn't think that meant areas with an SW postcode?
Though I don't have much time for either, Farage has played a clever game over the years in keeping his fingerprints off most of the racism and loony-right stuff.
So assuming the value of the asset doesn’t change over time, after 20 years you’ll have paid half the value of it in tax.
If instead you did it simple interest on a diminishing value (eg selling shares each year to pay the tax) then you’d need about 27 years for it to be cut in half.
https://twitter.com/lucyallan/status/1120663812129075204?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Concorde Hotel in mid town is easy walking to everywhere and rooms are newish and staff friendly.
If you pay a bit more the intercontinental at times square is really nice. Love the lobby and views from the upper windows.
Percentage wise you need less there to get an MEP . I’d expect them to get their best share of the vote there.
Its one region where you would expect them to be likely to win a seat.
So strangely backwards.
I think @Richard_Nabavi’s equation is correct.
All this of course assumes no changes in behaviour over time, nor the rate of an established tax being jacked by populist politicians - “Vote for me and I’ll make it 5%”. What’s likely in practice is a huge increase in complicated trusts and charitable vehicles.
"So there I was, sitting on my sofa, watching this bloke and he did..."
Or maybe they haven't thought it through?
Though I think the former is more natural.
The problem with them is they see themselves as the beginning of a new centrist force, like En Marche, but there is no sign at all that the public wish them to perform that role.
The have one job to do right now, which is foil Brexit. Everything else is trivia.
To me, she seems like one of the only politicians who's been advocating genuine social democracy in recent years (as opposed to either full-fat socialism or "centrism", aka neoliberalism plus virtue-signalling). She obviously believes in a strong private-sector, even if she thinks letting certain companies get too big is no good for anyone (especially for small businesses who get totally crowded out). And she doesn't believe in total equality of outcome, she thinks there will always and should always be some people who are wealthier than others, even though she thinks the proportions should be much smaller than now. That politics appeals to me, but maybe it's too wishy-washy to appeal to a lot of people right now, hence her polling.
It therefore creates a fear. Many people think: "I'm not wealthy, but I am well off (through my own hard work). What happens when the pips have been squeezed out of the rich and they start looking a little bit lower?"
As such, it's quite easy to attack - and more so in the US than over here.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
I'm guessing that Peter Griffiths is not the former MP for Portsmouth North and Smethwick.
So, effectively, they are reducing the stock of investible capital which will make the country worse off over time.
Fundamentally, government redistribution/social spending should be funded from revenue based taxes (income tax, sales tax, profits tax, etc) while government service provision should be funded by flattish/non-profit based taxes.
Wealth is better taxed on the income that it generates than on the capital itself.
If you convert wealth to revenue you end up with no assets. It's better to leave surplus assets as income generating.
If you want to redistribute wealth just do it - take a slice and park it into a sovereign wealth fund or something.
I haven't seen the detail of Warren's proposal but there has to be a case for an annual tax on wealth to replace IHT and CGT.
In the South East I think I will stick with the LibDems. Voting to rescue a Tory MEP they recently threw out from their group isn’t my idea of Change UK.
I suspect the next Labour government will be introducing a wealth tax.