Cameron suggests tax cut for richest 4% of estates

System

cells wrote: »

The best taxes are those that are optional like inheritance tax.

All taxes are optional if you chose not to do the thing that attracts the tax.

cepheus

IronWolf wrote: »

"The Government's official forecaster has said the proportion of estates attracting inheritance tax would double within the next four years from one in 20 today to almost one in 10."

People like you just want to continuously lower the boundary where the label 'rich' applies.

The level of what constitutes rich is raised each year through inflation and house prices. Expressed as a percentile the proportion of rich people don't change. Personally I don't see why the richest third can't be called rich and the lower third poor, although one might need to take capital and pensions into account.

I certainly don't think Cameron's tax cuts benefit 'Middle incomes' as the Tories (and much of the media) claim. What he gives by the raising of the zero tax band, will be probably taken away through other taxes, possibly VAT, and off course reduced services. The lowering of the top rate will be most significant for the richest few percent.

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

all in all the gov spends roughly 700B, collects 550B, I find it hard to believe the top 10% even contributes 25% of the 700B

Top 10% contribute around 75% of all income tax paid.

The bottom 50% less than 10%.

Income tax raises around a £165 billion. So in number terms £124 billion and £17 billion respectively.

£124 billion is 22.5% of £550 billion.

N1AK

cells wrote: »

we know most income tax is paid by high wage earners but what about VAT and NI fuel duty cig and alcohol duty council tax etc

He didn't mention income, he said tax. Try not to a) make wild assumptions b) create strawmen when you can't argue his point.

cells wrote: »

all in all the gov spends roughly 700B, collects 550B, I find it hard to believe the top 10% even contributes 25% of the 700B

So you haven't even done some rudimentary research but we're supposed to consider your points seriously because "you find it hard to believe".

Generali

This is how the BBC portrays it by decile:



The numbers are a little old but there's not been a fiscal revolution in the last 3 years that I'm aware of. If the rich get a tax break it's not a subsidy for the rich, it's a (usually small) reduction in the huge amount the rich pay to the rest of us. I guess rich could reasonably be described as the top 15% so that's households earning more than about £41,500.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

MobileSaver

cells wrote: »

Is that true

we know most income tax is paid by high wage earners but what about VAT and NI fuel duty cig and alcohol duty council tax etc

It is true and it's sad that the likes of redcard and others are in denial about who contributes the most to the local and national services and benefits that they take for granted.

As you say, Income Tax is the biggie with the highest earners paying more in one year than the average person pays in their entire lifetime.

VAT: Most essential food and drink is zero VAT and essential power and utilities are either zero or low-rate VAT. So the bulk of VAT receipts are from non essential items which, it goes without saying, higher earners are more likely to buy more of and more expensive items.

Council Tax: Again higher earners are obviously more likely to be in bigger houses paying more tax.

Stamp Duty: Again higher earners buying bigger house can pay more duty in one transaction than most people will pay in their entire lifetime of buying and selling houses.

cepheus

...markets are not self-correcting mechanisms. As the UK has become ever more unequal, it has created more wealthy people and drawn in yet more of the global wealthy, attracted by low property taxation as well as apparent bargains to be snapped up when the pound is cheaper. The UK could easily continue along this line, become yet more unequal and not normalise, or there could be a property crash of the kind that occurred in Japan. Almost anything could happen, but the near future is unlikely to be “normal”.

Most importantly, there comes a point when more and more people understand that wealth cannot increase by 40% in five years without repercussions. We are not all suddenly working so hard that we will produce 40% more of everything we have in that short time. The projected increase is a massive claim over the lives of others, over their labour, over their property, because a few at the top can create new financial instruments and say they have created wealth.

The wealth creators have decreed that there will both be a 40% increase in wealth and that the share of the total taken by the majority will diminish as the share taken at the top continues to rise. In the UK, this situation became normal in the 1980s, accelerated in the 1990s and is accelerating again now. Of all the G7 countries it is the UK that stands out like a sore thumb. The global story is far from stable, or sustainable, and the UK is the one to watch.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/wealth-inequality-uk-ticking-timebomb-credit-suisse-crash

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

In the UK, this situation became normal in the 1980s, accelerated in the 1990s and is accelerating again now. Of all the G7 countries it is the UK that stands out like a sore thumb.

I notice the omission of Brown's golden years...... Allow the banks to run riot whilst upping welfare benefits.

The US is far worse in terms of equality in more ways than just money. .

cepheus

Generali wrote: »

This is how the BBC portrays it by decile:



The numbers are a little old but there's not been a fiscal revolution in the last 3 years that I'm aware of. If the rich get a tax break it's not a subsidy for the rich, it's a (usually small) reduction in the huge amount the rich pay to the rest of us. I guess rich could reasonably be described as the top 15% so that's households earning more than about £41,500.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

Oh yes that old straw man, rich pay 'us'. Love to know how many on here are 'us'. According to market doctrine someone could run the most corrupt monopoly imaginable, yet they would be doing everyone a favour paying any of it back. Isn't that what Capone did?

Unless the market is heavily competitive, driving down executive pay through competition and evidence based performance (I don't buy it's any more difficult or skillful job as many low payed professions) it's not meaningful to suggest it's theirs legitimately to give.

cepheus

Richest 1% of people own nearly half of global wealth, says Credit Suisse report

The richest 1% of the world’s population are getting wealthier, owning more than 48% of global wealth, according to a report published on Tuesday which warned growing inequality could be a trigger for recession. The report said: “...abnormally high wealth income ratios have always signaled recession in the past”. The Credit Suisse analysts pointed to the debate that has been sparked by work such as that by Thomas Piketty into long-term trends towards inequality. It pointed out that while inequality had increased in many countries outside the G7, within the group of most developed economies it was only in the UK that inequality had risen since the turn of the century. Globally, a person needs just $3,650 – including the value of equity in their home – to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, more than $77,000 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and $798,000 to belong to the top 1%. The findings were seized upon by anti-poverty campaigners Oxfam which published research at the start of the year showing that the richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world’s population.