Cameron suggests tax cut for richest 4% of estates

shortchanged_2

MobileSaver wrote: »

Ah, the politics of envy!

Why would anyone carry on working if the state was taking 80% of what you generated? Answer: you wouldn't. You'd simply shut down or move elsewhere and say "So long and thanks for all the fish!"

So you would say it's not worth getting out of bed for £10 million or less.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

What's fair? This is just statistics.

Merely pointing out the inequality.

Household one income £30,834 tax home

Household 2 incomes £33,788

Not statistics. This is hard cash...........

Devon_Sailor

I think one of the best arguments in favour of abolishing/drastically lowering IHT is the trickle down effect. Im not talking about the ultra rich, im thinking of those middle of the road families, or youngsters, who come into an inheritance of moderate size - not life changing, but enough to fund that extra career development course, or make that dream of running their own business a reality. Heck, even paying down/off their mortgage.

Result? Better equipped employees for the workplace. More wealth/job creating businesses. Less personal debt so more to spend on luxuries/services, thus increasing demand and maintaining other jobs and industries. All without the cold dead hand of the Nanny State interfering and telling you what, how or when you can spend your money.

Regards
DS

Thrugelmir

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

I think one of the best arguments in favour of abolishing/drastically lowering IHT is the trickle down effect. Im not talking about the ultra rich, im thinking of those middle of the road families, or youngsters, who come into an inheritance of moderate size - not life changing, but enough to fund that extra career development course, or make that dream of running their own business a reality. Heck, even paying down/off their mortgage.

Average age of those obtaining an inheritance is now around 60,,,,,,,

More likely to have no pension. So clear mortgage and spend it on cruises.

marlot

"The top 1% of earners - just 300,000 people - pay 27% of all income tax." - from that same BBC source.

Much though I'm a fan of soaking the rich, it seems to me that these are people who can escape our country pretty easily, so getting the right balance is important. I'd hate to lose that 27%.

vivatifosi

I'm late to this thread, so don't know whether the article quoted in the OP has been amended. However I can see no reference to the top 4%. Instead there's a conflation of those paying 40% tax with the very wealthy.

This is a shame, because Cepheus has then gone on to talk about the top 1% globally by wealth without it really being picked up on. That ability to leverage wealth and to move it around is a big issue. I'd like to see a good debate on this, and life's too short to read Piketty.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm late to this thread, so don't know whether the article quoted in the OP has been amended. However I can see no reference to the top 4%. Instead there's a conflation of those paying 40% tax with the very wealthy.

This is a shame, because Cepheus has then gone on to talk about the top 1% globally by wealth without it really being picked up on. That ability to leverage wealth and to move it around is a big issue. I'd like to see a good debate on this, and life's too short to read Piketty.

For me, this vilification of the 1% or the idea that they can be tapped for huge amounts of cash is a bit silly really.

If we're serious about inequality then the top third or half will have to hand substantial amounts of wealth to the rest. That effectively means that the middle classes of the West giving up most of their money to subsistence farmers in Africa, South America and Asia.

I have never seen a single argument in favour of normal people in rich countries giving up pretty much everything to people who are mind-bogglingly poor elsewhere. It's always that someone else should do the heavy lifting. I find it disappointing at best, hypocritical really.

MobileSaver

shortchanged wrote: »

So you would say it's not worth getting out of bed for £10 million or less.

It's not worth getting out of bed in a country where they would take 80% of your £10 million off you when it's pretty simple to move your home/base/skills/staff/wealth to a country that would only take 40% or less...

The old adage applies; be careful what you wish for.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

Nah, I would say tax them at 80% on anything over £10 million.

People game the tax system at much lower incomes. I'd be at it full time on a wedge of £10m and still pondering if I could get child benefit.

An 80% tax over earnings of £10m would yield no revenue for the treasury. It would be the most easily avoidable tax ever dreamt up.

MobileSaver

Generali wrote: »

the West giving up most of their money to subsistence farmers in Africa, South America and Asia.

It's always that someone else should do the heavy lifting. I find it disappointing at best, hypocritical really.

Good point Generali.

Moby wrote: »

You tax them till the pips squeak. Spread the wealth!

So what of it Moby, are you happy to be taxed till your pips squeak to support poorer people in Africa?

Or does spreading the wealth not spread that far?