I don't know why the USA is celebrating its 250th birthday today. The 13 colonies declared independence as sovereign states and it was not until Confederation in 1781 they became one country. So only the 13 original colonies plus maybe some other states that were part of them (such as Maine, Tennessee, W Virginia) should be celebrating
The War ended in 1783 in any case (Treaty of Paris).
Quite. Their independence was just a piece of irrelevant paper until then, and illegal.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
Haven't Millfied been doing this for the last 80 years?
Lots of private school do this. Maro Itoje went to Harrow under a rugby scholarship.
Millfield is particularly charitable in that they also take the thicko poshos to thick too get into other private schools and train them for a career in sports or arts.
I believe the Beckhams sons went to Millfield and Romeo is of course now an actor, model and singer and was a footballer briefly, though Brooklyn didn't quite make it in sports, arts or as a chef though his billionaire father in law no doubt soothed that
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.
Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns
Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus
Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.
Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.
Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.
The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
The difference with how US sports work though, is that by design the college athletics system is the only route into the professional sport. It wouldn’t work for international sports, where clubs are free to sign and develop young players by themselves.
There’s also the minor problem of 90% of reported college rapes in the US being by ‘athletes’, and the schools being very unwilling to expel star players for ‘personal problems’.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible." "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT." "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Taxes will rise. We all know it.
SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.
I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.
I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.
Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.
With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.
I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.
(*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes
Er... IHT?
Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
But the assets are transferable, introduce a wealth tax and suddenly a lot of wealth will be stored outside the UK..
Then also introduce an export tax on personal possessions.
Had no idea we were reinstating the Irish border to stop all that gold and cash leaving the country?
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
The difference with how US sports work though, is that by design the college athletics system is the only route into the professional sport. It wouldn’t work for international sports, where clubs are free to sign and develop young players by themselves.
There’s also the minor problem of 90% of reported college rapes in the US being by ‘athletes’, and the schools being very unwilling to expel star players for ‘personal problems’.
UK "college" sports is generally not very high level. There are exceptions e.g. BUCs Super Rugby has become a bit similar to US college sports, all these young players signed to the likes of Bath or Exeter go to uni there and then play this special Super Rugby championship and first team cup games for their club (where all the major pros get rested). The likes of Kepueli Tuipulotu and Enoch Opoku-Gyamfi play BUCs Super Rugby for Bath Uni, and both been called up for England and Italy respectively i.e. you aren't playing against some blokes who spend their days drinking 10 pints before and after the game and running around town in fancy dress on a Wednesday night.
The level below college sports in the US is now insane. A friend sent their kid on this for basketbal and it cost stupid money for a summer doing the youth tournaments.
Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.
Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns
Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus
Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.
Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.
Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.
The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.
According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.
However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
This pretty obviously not true. What percentage of American school boards are controlled by people saying that? How long have they been in control etc?
I actually did do history and civics in Georgia in the Seventies for 5 years, at a time when the State was under Democrat control and it was certainly not the case then. Indeed the history curriculum very much focussed on the US war of Independence and Constitution.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
Haven't Millfied been doing this for the last 80 years?
Lots of private school do this. Maro Itoje went to Harrow under a rugby scholarship.
Millfield is particularly charitable in that they also take the thicko poshos too thick to get into other private schools and train them for a career in sports or the arts or if they even too shit for that a career in making tampon ads.
If TSE hadn't banned flagging for reasons other than site jeopardy, I would have flagged that post for its unnecessary second paragraph.
Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot
Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it
Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it
Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership
Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters
Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits
I've just seen the twitter thread that these were copied from; can you explain to me why the state should own a car company?
Ownership is irrelevant. SAIC are state owned and they make 4 million cars a year and shitloads of money doing. The only thing that matters in the any fucking car business is the product.
Fixed that for you.
Had one of the last Rovers 75 deeply discounted. Not a bad car for the first year or so. BMW since then but that brand is starting to show MTBF of short periods of time.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
Yes but that argues for shifting the fiscal burden from income to wealth - which you can't do if you set your store against taxing wealth on the grounds that accruing wealth is a virtue.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
Exactly why I am not planning retirement any time soon.
Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible." "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT." "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Taxes will rise. We all know it.
SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.
I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.
I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.
Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.
With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.
I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.
(*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes
Er... IHT?
Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
You could abolish IHT and tax it as income of the recipient.
Which makes much more sense, if you think about it.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
Haven't Millfied been doing this for the last 80 years?
It has and even with, shock horror, football scholarships and of the soccer not rugby variety
Wasn't Charterhouse the big association football public school?
See, I don't have a problem with Headmaster Conference schools. It's me paying for other people's children to attend Grammar Schools I object to.
Charterhouse is definitely a soccer school. It’s also the biggest (apart from their own versions of football) team ball game at Eton and Winchester and Westminster (if I remember correctly).
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.
According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.
However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
Try this one. "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"
No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
Indeed, it’s a phrase which means very different things to different people, and which the atheist elites like to use as a smear against those who believe in God.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
The difference with how US sports work though, is that by design the college athletics system is the only route into the professional sport. It wouldn’t work for international sports, where clubs are free to sign and develop young players by themselves.
There’s also the minor problem of 90% of reported college rapes in the US being by ‘athletes’, and the schools being very unwilling to expel star players for ‘personal problems’.
UK "college" sports is generally not very high level. There are exceptions e.g. BUCs Super Rugby has become a bit similar to US college sports, all these young players signed to the likes of Bath or Exeter go to uni there and then play this special Super Rugby championship and first team cup games for their club (where all the major pros get rested). The likes of Kepueli Tuipulotu and Enoch Opoku-Gyamfi play BUCs Super Rugby for Bath Uni, and both been called up for England and Italy respectively i.e. you aren't playing against some blokes who spend their days drinking 10 pints before and after the game and running around town in fancy dress on a Wednesday night.
The level below college sports in the US is now insane. A friend sent their kid on this for basketbal and it cost stupid money for a summer doing the youth tournaments.
That video is horrific, also not something I’d expect from Wendover who aren’t a political channel. The parents are way better off putting their money into a college investment fund than into a summer of massive sports tournaments with a 0% statistical chance of producing a college scholarship.
As for rugby, the whole point of rugby is to drink 10 pints and run around town in fancy dress, is it not?
A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.
According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.
However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
Try this one. "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"
No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
America (supposedly) has a seperation of church and state, so doesn't teach religion in public schools.
I wonder how, for example, you would teach European history from 1500-1700 without teaching a very great deal about the facts, demography, teachings, ecclesiology, differences and consequences of religion.
Well, having done my 5 years history in US schools I can speak from personal experience. The curriculum was pretty chronological from age 10-15.
Ancient history was well covered starting with Egyptians and Sumerians, through Phoenician, Greek, Cathaginian and Roman times, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Charlemagne, the Vikings, the Crusades, the rise of Muscovy, the fall of Byzantium etc. We really covered most of European history far better than my boys did in British schools.
Then Columbus "discovered" America, shortly followed by the Conquistadores, and the Mayflower sailed. After that not much happened in Europe until the USA bailed out Britain in WW2 and faced down Stalin in the Cold War. Basically, all history happened in America after 1620.
So religion didn't come into it much, apart from the the pilgrim fathers fleeing religious persecution by those nasty Brits.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
Yes but that argues for shifting the fiscal burden from income to wealth - which you can't do if you set your store against taxing wealth on the grounds that accruing wealth is a virtue.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Andy Burnham is supposedly well disposed to this. But the AB pudding awaits the eating. It is, as yet, still in the fridge.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
Yes but that argues for shifting the fiscal burden from income to wealth - which you can't do if you set your store against taxing wealth on the grounds that accruing wealth is a virtue.
Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible." "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT." "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Taxes will rise. We all know it.
SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.
I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.
I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.
Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.
With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.
I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.
(*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes
Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.
Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.
That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.
Just raise income tax or don't bother.
This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.
VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.
The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
True - but it was never supposed to raise revenue.
2020s fox hunting, and f*** all the kids who have their education turned upside-down.
Poor bairns, having to slum it with the rest of us.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.
According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.
However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
Try this one. "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"
No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
America (supposedly) has a seperation of church and state, so doesn't teach religion in public schools.
I wonder how, for example, you would teach European history from 1500-1700 without teaching a very great deal about the facts, demography, teachings, ecclesiology, differences and consequences of religion.
Well, having done my 5 years history in US schools I can speak from personal experience. The curriculum was pretty chronological from age 10-15.
Ancient history was well covered starting with Egyptians and Sumerians, through Phoenician, Greek, Cathaginian and Roman times, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Charlemagne, the Vikings, the Crusades, the rise of Muscovy, the fall of Byzantium etc. We really covered most of European history far better than my boys did in British schools.
Then Columbus "discovered" America, shortly followed by the Conquistadores, and the Mayflower sailed. After that not much happened in Europe until the USA bailed out Britain in WW2 and faced down Stalin in the Cold War. Basically, all history happened in America after 1620.
So religion didn't come into it much, apart from the the pilgrim fathers fleeing religious persecution by those nasty Brits.
the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Charlemagne, the Vikings, the Crusades, the rise of Muscovy, the fall of Byzantium etc.
If religion does not come into each of those as central to understanding them, there is, to say the least, a yawning gap.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
Yes but that argues for shifting the fiscal burden from income to wealth - which you can't do if you set your store against taxing wealth on the grounds that accruing wealth is a virtue.
Who says that accruing wealth is a virtue?
The post I was replying to. Although tbf it does say wealth creation. A person can create without accruing and vice versa. Indeed both those things are common. And the difference isn't always clear or obvious.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Well if we could raise enough from taxing vice to fund what we need to fund, fair enough. But we can't. Any case, as I say, I was answering Mortimer's "why bother" question. I'm not advocating for any particular wealth tax. I just don't have a visceral aversion to the idea. If one can be designed that works and raises good money without greater negative consequences, let's seriously consider it.
The point, though, is a good one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
Yes but that argues for shifting the fiscal burden from income to wealth - which you can't do if you set your store against taxing wealth on the grounds that accruing wealth is a virtue.
Who says that accruing wealth is a virtue?
It is, to a point. Because it gives you choices and options and frees you from worry.
Too much, if not used wisely, can be a burden and even self-destructive.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Who are you trying to kid. labour’s whole approach is to tell those gullible enough to believe it you will benefit from more state expenditure but don’t worry we will tax someone else.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
Well that was my choice for a while after I graduated. But I sobered up eventually.
Seriously though, I think I'm right. I do not think you'd have held back from the dream scenario of making a living from a hobby by a piffling little bit of extra tax.
A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.
According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.
However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
Try this one. "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"
No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
America (supposedly) has a seperation of church and state, so doesn't teach religion in public schools.
I wonder how, for example, you would teach European history from 1500-1700 without teaching a very great deal about the facts, demography, teachings, ecclesiology, differences and consequences of religion.
Well, having done my 5 years history in US schools I can speak from personal experience. The curriculum was pretty chronological from age 10-15.
Ancient history was well covered starting with Egyptians and Sumerians, through Phoenician, Greek, Cathaginian and Roman times, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Charlemagne, the Vikings, the Crusades, the rise of Muscovy, the fall of Byzantium etc. We really covered most of European history far better than my boys did in British schools.
Then Columbus "discovered" America, shortly followed by the Conquistadores, and the Mayflower sailed. After that not much happened in Europe until the USA bailed out Britain in WW2 and faced down Stalin in the Cold War. Basically, all history happened in America after 1620.
So religion didn't come into it much, apart from the the pilgrim fathers fleeing religious persecution by those nasty Brits.
the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Charlemagne, the Vikings, the Crusades, the rise of Muscovy, the fall of Byzantium etc.
If religion does not come into each of those as central to understanding them, there is, to say the least, a yawning gap.
These were taught as geo-politics without really much discussion of religion itself. This was in the Deep South Bible Belt too. At that time the Constitutional seperation of church and state was honoured.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
Well that was my choice for a while after I graduated. But I sobered up eventually.
Seriously though, I think I'm right. I do not think you'd have held back from the dream scenario of making a living from a hobby by a piffling little bit of extra tax.
I'd likely have become a hobbyist seller like many of my pals - I wouldn't have employed 5 people, or paid huge amounts of corp tax in creating a business.
The hassle of owning a business is massively underestimated by those who work 9-5, or even 8-8....
'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.
In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”
Fair enough. I think Starmer’s 2024 victory does sit alongside Attlee’s and Blair’s… but Attlee and Blair then did something with their victories.
It really doesn't. For their faults, Attlee and Blair set out a positive vision and attracted over 49% and 43% of the popular vote.
Starmer never set out a vision, he promised change without fully laying out what that meant. And he u-turned on a number of things that did feature in his manifesto meaning that he lost trust very quickly. The majority he got was due to the fracturing of British politics and he secured under 34% of the vote. There was never a love for Starmer. No enthusiasm. No passion.
In no way are these things comparable.
Attlee won because of the war; I’m not certain it was anything in particular that Attlee did that got them the victory. Blair’s victory came on the back of what Kinnock and Smith had done. I think one can argue that Starmer, of the three, did most work in terms of transforming Labour! Although Starmer also won because of the fracturing of the Right and the failures of Johnson and Truss.
The 1945 GE was in large part a delayed punishment for the Tories’ abject foreign policy failures during the 1930s, coupled with the belief that the social ‘levelling’ effect of war ought to merit a better, fairer world thereafter.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
Well that was my choice for a while after I graduated. But I sobered up eventually.
Seriously though, I think I'm right. I do not think you'd have held back from the dream scenario of making a living from a hobby by a piffling little bit of extra tax.
Surely it very much depends on the level of any wealth tax?
If it is a fraction of a percent (as council tax is on larger houses for example) then presumably no measurable impact. If 10% per year then probably it would have some impact.
Worth noting that "wealth creators" are enabled to do so undisturbed as a result of many public goods, including an educated workforce, the rule of law, freedom from invasion, transport infrastructure, a safety net if their business fails, etc. It is only right that those benefiting from these benign conditions contribute to those conditions being maintained.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
The difference with how US sports work though, is that by design the college athletics system is the only route into the professional sport. It wouldn’t work for international sports, where clubs are free to sign and develop young players by themselves.
There’s also the minor problem of 90% of reported college rapes in the US being by ‘athletes’, and the schools being very unwilling to expel star players for ‘personal problems’.
Americans simply don’t understand any difference between sport and entertainment
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
Neither is taxing incomes ...
So maybe we should be reducing taxes on both income and capital.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
The government has obligations, and it needs to raise funds to pay for them. Now, we can argue about what the extent of the State should be, but that's a discussion for another time.
And it's really very simple: the government should encourage the efficient allocation of capital.
So, that means taxes which stop the market clearing (i.e. stamp duty) are bad. They encourage the inefficient use of capital.
On the other hand, ones which encourage the efficient allocation of capital are good. An example would be a land value tax, which discourages people from sitting on undeveloped land.
Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible." "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT." "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Taxes will rise. We all know it.
SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.
I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.
I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.
Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.
With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.
I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.
(*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes
Er... IHT?
Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
You could abolish IHT and tax it as income of the recipient.
Which makes much more sense, if you think about it.
Either that, or do away with all the exemptions and allowances and via-trust fiddles, and tax all inheritances at a flat say 10% rate, such that the payoff from the effort of trying to evade it is minimal as would be the effect on individual inheritances, yet the breadth of IHT becomes much more robust?
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.
The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.
It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.
The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'
The difference with how US sports work though, is that by design the college athletics system is the only route into the professional sport. It wouldn’t work for international sports, where clubs are free to sign and develop young players by themselves.
There’s also the minor problem of 90% of reported college rapes in the US being by ‘athletes’, and the schools being very unwilling to expel star players for ‘personal problems’.
Americans simply don’t understand any difference between sport and entertainment
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
Well that was my choice for a while after I graduated. But I sobered up eventually.
Seriously though, I think I'm right. I do not think you'd have held back from the dream scenario of making a living from a hobby by a piffling little bit of extra tax.
I'd likely have become a hobbyist seller like many of my pals - I wouldn't have employed 5 people, or paid huge amounts of corp tax in creating a business.
The hassle of owning a business is massively underestimated by those who work 9-5, or even 8-8....
Good job we have so many in the current administration who understand and appreciate this.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
The government has obligations, and it needs to raise funds to pay for them. Now, we can argue about what the extent of the State should be, but that's a discussion for another time.
And it's really very simple: the government should encourage the efficient allocation of capital.
So, that means taxes which stop the market clearing (i.e. stamp duty) are bad. They encourage the inefficient use of capital.
On the other hand, ones which encourage the efficient allocation of capital are good. An example would be a land value tax, which discourages people from sitting on undeveloped land.
So presumably you would argue that capital that is being efficiently employed, say in a successful business that employs many or a farm. should not be taxed.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
Well that was my choice for a while after I graduated. But I sobered up eventually.
Seriously though, I think I'm right. I do not think you'd have held back from the dream scenario of making a living from a hobby by a piffling little bit of extra tax.
Surely it very much depends on the level of any wealth tax?
If it is a fraction of a percent (as council tax is on larger houses for example) then presumably no measurable impact. If 10% per year then probably it would have some impact.
Worth noting that "wealth creators" are enabled to do so undisturbed as a result of many public goods, including an educated workforce, the rule of law, freedom from invasion, transport infrastructure, a safety net if their business fails, etc. It is only right that those benefiting from these benign conditions contribute to those conditions being maintained.
That's the main point I'm trying to make. The level is key. But some posters have a philosophical objection, are saying it's wrong on principle, are saying the thought of any amount of this sort of tax at all would just stop people creating businesses in the first place, cause them to go abroad or do boring old jobs instead. I think they over-egg.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
Neither is taxing incomes ...
So maybe we should be reducing taxes on both income and capital.
The catch is that a good society costs, and the state has to raise the funds somehow.
Sin taxes are fine as far as they go- double bubble of raising money and nudging behaviour. Unfortunately, they also contain the seeds of their downfall; there's a kind of strong Laffer curve effect where, if you make something expensive enough to really discourage it, you don't get as much revenue from it any more. On top of that, it's pretty hard to imagine funding a nation state just on sin taxes. Most of us are nowhere near sinful enough.
(There's also an issue if people start to assume that all taxes are sin taxes; "Oh, so the government doesn't want me to work then? Fine- I'll show them...")
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
I don't know why the USA is celebrating its 250th birthday today. The 13 colonies declared independence as sovereign states and it was not until Confederation in 1781 they became one country. So only the 13 original colonies plus maybe some other states that were part of them (such as Maine, Tennessee, W Virginia) should be celebrating
The War ended in 1783 in any case (Treaty of Paris).
Quite. Their independence was just a piece of irrelevant paper until then, and illegal.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
You will find that lenders and investors are unlikely to give you the capital needed if your plan isn't to make any money.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
If you eliminate the incentive to create and run a business you don’t have employees and products for customers.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
The government has obligations, and it needs to raise funds to pay for them. Now, we can argue about what the extent of the State should be, but that's a discussion for another time.
And it's really very simple: the government should encourage the efficient allocation of capital.
So, that means taxes which stop the market clearing (i.e. stamp duty) are bad. They encourage the inefficient use of capital.
On the other hand, ones which encourage the efficient allocation of capital are good. An example would be a land value tax, which discourages people from sitting on undeveloped land.
So presumably you would argue that capital that is being efficiently employed, say in a successful business that employs many or a farm. should not be taxed.
It is the taxation that encourages the efficient allocation. Because if you aren't making money from the land, you have to sell it to someone who will use it more productively (and therefore be able to pay the tax).
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
Neither is taxing incomes ...
So maybe we should be reducing taxes on both income and capital.
The catch is that a good society costs, and the state has to raise the funds somehow.
Sin taxes are fine as far as they go- double bubble of raising money and nudging behaviour. Unfortunately, they also contain the seeds of their downfall; there's a kind of strong Laffer curve effect where, if you make something expensive enough to really discourage it, you don't get as much revenue from it any more. On top of that, it's pretty hard to imagine funding a nation state just on sin taxes. Most of us are nowhere near sinful enough.
(There's also an issue if people start to assume that all taxes are sin taxes; "Oh, so the government doesn't want me to work then? Fine- I'll show them...")
Where we are now with taxes and expenditure at record levels seems to me our focus should be on reducing expenditure and looking for opportunities to lower taxes to benefit from the Laffer curve.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Who are you trying to kid. labour’s whole approach is to tell those gullible enough to believe it you will benefit from more state expenditure but don’t worry we will tax someone else.
That is more a feature of tax/spend than a bug. By and large the well-off contribute more to funding public services than they use and vice versa for the less well-off. This acts to reduce inequality.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
You will find that lenders and investors are unlikely to give you the capital needed if your plan isn't to make any money.
Those folks don't want you to get wealthy, they want themselves to get wealthy. Paying them their bit I would regard as part of the cost of doing business.
Lenders and investors are content to but their money into Regulated Asset Base projects, where a modest return is hard wired, and the project developers don't have an opportunity to walk away with wheelbarrows of cash (as long as the government lawyers haven't made an arse of the Ts & Cs).
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
You will find that lenders and investors are unlikely to give you the capital needed if your plan isn't to make any money.
Those folks don't want you to get wealthy, they want themselves to get wealthy. Paying them their bit I would regard as part of the cost of doing business.
Lenders and investors are content to but their money into Regulated Asset Base projects, where a modest return is hard wired, and the project developers don't have an opportunity to walk away with wheelbarrows of cash (as long as the government lawyers haven't made an arse of the Ts & Cs).
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
The government has obligations, and it needs to raise funds to pay for them. Now, we can argue about what the extent of the State should be, but that's a discussion for another time.
And it's really very simple: the government should encourage the efficient allocation of capital.
So, that means taxes which stop the market clearing (i.e. stamp duty) are bad. They encourage the inefficient use of capital.
On the other hand, ones which encourage the efficient allocation of capital are good. An example would be a land value tax, which discourages people from sitting on undeveloped land.
So presumably you would argue that capital that is being efficiently employed, say in a successful business that employs many or a farm. should not be taxed.
It is the taxation that encourages the efficient allocation. Because if you aren't making money from the land, you have to sell it to someone who will use it more productively (and therefore be able to pay the tax).
You seem to be fixated on on land tax rather than wealth tax. Seems obvious to me that return on capital wherever it is invested is the mechanism to ensure efficient use of capital. It is true tax is a component of a return on capital calculation is tax but in the global economy we operate in taxes in the UK encourage investment in jurisdictions with lower or no taxes.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
If you eliminate the incentive to create and run a business you don’t have employees and products for customers.
You have state control of the means of production.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.
That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.
Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
It's just shifting the tax burden from the flow to the stock. If you want a dynamic economy, with the opportunity for social mobility and entrepreneurship, the latter is better.
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
So what you are advocating is taxing capital to fund current expenses. Doesn’t sound like a recipe to make the country as a whole richer.
The government has obligations, and it needs to raise funds to pay for them. Now, we can argue about what the extent of the State should be, but that's a discussion for another time.
And it's really very simple: the government should encourage the efficient allocation of capital.
So, that means taxes which stop the market clearing (i.e. stamp duty) are bad. They encourage the inefficient use of capital.
On the other hand, ones which encourage the efficient allocation of capital are good. An example would be a land value tax, which discourages people from sitting on undeveloped land.
So presumably you would argue that capital that is being efficiently employed, say in a successful business that employs many or a farm. should not be taxed.
It is the taxation that encourages the efficient allocation. Because if you aren't making money from the land, you have to sell it to someone who will use it more productively (and therefore be able to pay the tax).
You seem to be fixated on on land tax rather than wealth tax. Seems obvious to me that return on capital wherever it is invested is the mechanism to ensure efficient use of capital. It is true tax is a component of a return on capital calculation is tax but in the global economy we operate in taxes in the UK encourage investment in jurisdictions with lower or no taxes.
I don't have any issue with a *small* wealth tax, but I am generally nervous about valuing things which are illiquid and/or otherwise hard to price.
This year, the Series B on my insurance company will likely see me become a very rich man on paper. But I won't actually be able to spend any of that money.
Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.
Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns
Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus
Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.
Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.
Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.
The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.
I don't know why the USA is celebrating its 250th birthday today. The 13 colonies declared independence as sovereign states and it was not until Confederation in 1781 they became one country. So only the 13 original colonies plus maybe some other states that were part of them (such as Maine, Tennessee, W Virginia) should be celebrating
The War ended in 1783 in any case (Treaty of Paris).
Quite. Their independence was just a piece of irrelevant paper until then, and illegal.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
No, because rents are set by supply and demand.
If landlords could put up their rents by £100pcm and tenants would be just stuck with it they would do that anyway, with or without a tax.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
You will find that lenders and investors are unlikely to give you the capital needed if your plan isn't to make any money.
Those folks don't want you to get wealthy, they want themselves to get wealthy. Paying them their bit I would regard as part of the cost of doing business.
Lenders and investors are content to but their money into Regulated Asset Base projects, where a modest return is hard wired, and the project developers don't have an opportunity to walk away with wheelbarrows of cash (as long as the government lawyers haven't made an arse of the Ts & Cs).
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
But wouldn't it be lovely to live in a benevolent society?
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
If you eliminate the incentive to create and run a business you don’t have employees and products for customers.
You have state control of the means of production.
What I don't get is most of the rest of Europe have higher taxes than the UK, often much higher in Scandinavia, yet those countries have economies that are comparable to ours in growth.
Why are those higher taxes in those other countries not having the negative impact on their economies that we keep being told is inevitable if the same happened here ?
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
You will find that lenders and investors are unlikely to give you the capital needed if your plan isn't to make any money.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
Comments
You'd probably end up better off given your "modest" wealth and successful business from which you are deriving an income.
Nobody needs to complete that sentence.
There’s also the minor problem of 90% of reported college rapes in the US being by ‘athletes’, and the schools being very unwilling to expel star players for ‘personal problems’.
“ Argentina advance after a rare successful encounter with a small Atlantic island.”
https://x.com/falklands_utd/status/2073350008607285251?s=61
The level below college sports in the US is now insane. A friend sent their kid on this for basketbal and it cost stupid money for a summer doing the youth tournaments.
How Private Equity Ruined American Youth Sports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPeRd48YfqY
What are Putin's options to end his 3 day war? Doubling down, however illogical, might be one.
We should tax what we wish to discourage, and -as much as possible- not tax that which we wish to encourage.
Work is good. People who work are healthier, less likely to be depressed or get ill. There are a whole host of benefits above and beyond the simple 'paycheck' that comes from being in gainful employment.
We should encourage working, rather than taxing it like cigarettes and alcohol.
I actually did do history and civics in Georgia in the Seventies for 5 years, at a time when the State was under Democrat control and it was certainly not the case then. Indeed the history curriculum very much focussed on the US war of Independence and Constitution.
Had one of the last Rovers 75 deeply discounted. Not a bad car for the first year or so. BMW since then but that brand is starting to show MTBF of short periods of time.
See, I don't have a problem with Headmaster Conference schools. It's me paying for other people's children to attend Grammar Schools I object to.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
As for rugby, the whole point of rugby is to drink 10 pints and run around town in fancy dress, is it not?
Ancient history was well covered starting with Egyptians and Sumerians, through Phoenician, Greek, Cathaginian and Roman times, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Charlemagne, the Vikings, the Crusades, the rise of Muscovy, the fall of Byzantium etc. We really covered most of European history far better than my boys did in British schools.
Then Columbus "discovered" America, shortly followed by the Conquistadores, and the Mayflower sailed. After that not much happened in Europe until the USA bailed out Britain in WW2 and faced down Stalin in the Cold War. Basically, all history happened in America after 1620.
So religion didn't come into it much, apart from the the pilgrim fathers fleeing religious persecution by those nasty Brits.
If religion does not come into each of those as central to understanding them, there is, to say the least, a yawning gap.
Too much, if not used wisely, can be a burden and even self-destructive.
Seriously though, I think I'm right. I do not think you'd have held back from the dream scenario of making a living from a hobby by a piffling little bit of extra tax.
The hassle of owning a business is massively underestimated by those who work 9-5, or even 8-8....
If it is a fraction of a percent (as council tax is on larger houses for example) then presumably no measurable impact. If 10% per year then probably it would have some impact.
Worth noting that "wealth creators" are enabled to do so undisturbed as a result of many public goods, including an educated workforce, the rule of law, freedom from invasion, transport infrastructure, a safety net if their business fails, etc. It is only right that those benefiting from these benign conditions contribute to those conditions being maintained.
And it's really very simple: the government should encourage the efficient allocation of capital.
So, that means taxes which stop the market clearing (i.e. stamp duty) are bad. They encourage the inefficient use of capital.
On the other hand, ones which encourage the efficient allocation of capital are good. An example would be a land value tax, which discourages people from sitting on undeveloped land.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/04/washington-dc-fourth-of-july-parade-canceled-extreme-heat?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Though apparaently Trump is still planning his speech to go ahead.
Sin taxes are fine as far as they go- double bubble of raising money and nudging behaviour. Unfortunately, they also contain the seeds of their downfall; there's a kind of strong Laffer curve effect where, if you make something expensive enough to really discourage it, you don't get as much revenue from it any more. On top of that, it's pretty hard to imagine funding a nation state just on sin taxes. Most of us are nowhere near sinful enough.
(There's also an issue if people start to assume that all taxes are sin taxes; "Oh, so the government doesn't want me to work then? Fine- I'll show them...")
And there's tonnes of economic literature that supports that. (The wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax gives a good summary.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vx4dvgzno
Edit - Maybe not.
Lenders and investors are content to but their money into Regulated Asset Base projects, where a modest return is hard wired, and the project developers don't have an opportunity to walk away with wheelbarrows of cash (as long as the government lawyers haven't made an arse of the Ts & Cs).
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
This year, the Series B on my insurance company will likely see me become a very rich man on paper. But I won't actually be able to spend any of that money.
Why was Paraguay going to war with the rest of South America, in 1870 a good idea?
Why was attacking the Falkland in 1982 a good idea?
Why was The US attacking Iran in 2026 a good idea?
How many countries that *started* a war, won them?
This is Vladimir “Full Tonto” Putin, after all.
Not being considered next of kin wasn't a great position to be in.
If landlords could put up their rents by £100pcm and tenants would be just stuck with it they would do that anyway, with or without a tax.
Why are those higher taxes in those other countries not having the negative impact on their economies that we keep being told is inevitable if the same happened here ?
What is the difference ?
Interactive council and ward guide
https://x.com/britainvotesnow/status/2073395978174959767?s=61
Interactive council and ward guide
https://x.com/britainvotesnow/status/2073395978174959767?s=61