Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

Tax avoidance would go up
People would retire sooner
More non working high income People would leave the UK (lots of people have passive income eg pensions shares property)
More incomes would be shifted to capital gains

Also importantly income tax brings in about what £150B a year.
You would need to increase everyones income taxes by 1/3rd just to cover the deficit.
So the 20% band would become 26% and the 40% band would become 53% and the 45% band would become 60%. Of course there will be economic too now that everyone has less money to spend or save.

Tax avoidance is easily addressed by closing loopholes, making it difficult for tax to be avoided. Tax evasion can be addressed by better taxes, e.g. Land value tax would be incredibly difficult to escape.

Since theres a shortage of good jobs for young people (which is also delaying people getting experience and skills), people retiring early if they want to shouldnt necessarily be discouraged. Personally i think we should be offering incentives for older people to decrease their working hours to boost youth emoloyment in decent jobs... A smoother handover, and chance for those nearing retirement to pass along knowledge more than employers facilitate at present.

Funny thing about high earners leaving the UK... I thought a common brexiter argument was bankers etc. Wouldnt leave London for the continent because people love London. Granted, 80,90 pc tax would make them leave, but i doubt an increase of 5-10pc would. We could also stop the nondom situation and close other common workarounds used by the rich to dodge tax at present. Switching to capital gains can also be dealt with by taxing capital gains properly with far more aggressive enforcement. It astrounds me the level of enforcement for piddly amounts of money lost through fraudulent JSA, yet the government fails to properly enforce tax law on the rich and businesses that would yield far higher results! (actually it doesnt surprise me at all, the surorise is that they get away with it)

Rusty_Shackleton

cogito wrote: »

I refer you to your answer at #3481.

I didnt ask anything personal of economic yet still gave some indication which more or less answers whatvhe was asking (for example, having a BSc tells you i havent read theatre studies or any of the 'wasteful' degrees previously mentioned!).

You should be prepared to share the same information as you asked of me.

Sapphire

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Tax avoidance is easily addressed by closing loopholes, making it difficult for tax to be avoided. Tax evasion can be addressed by better taxes, e.g. Land value tax would be incredibly difficult to escape.

Funny thing about high earners leaving the UK... I thought a common brexiter argument was bankers etc. Wouldnt leave London for the continent because people love London. Granted, 80,90 pc tax would make them leave, but i doubt an increase of 5-10pc would. We could also stop the nondom situation and close other common workarounds used by the rich to dodge tax at present. Switching to capital gains can also be dealt with by taxing capital gains properly with far more aggressive enforcement. It astrounds me the level of enforcement for piddly amounts of money lost through fraudulent JSA, yet the government fails to properly enforce tax law on the rich and businesses that would yield far higher results! (actually it doesnt surprise me at all, the surorise is that they get away with it)

All part of the globalist agenda – the all-powerful individuals that run the global corporations would never allow this to happen, to their detriment. Enforcement of 'tax laws' on the 'rich' and 'businesses' would only work if it was done globally. If it was attempted at a country level, the most affluent individuals and corporations would simply up sticks and go elsewhere.

And as to your arguments that the 'baby boomers' could somehow have changed things by voting for parties that truly supported small businesses/workers, etc. (i.e. to the detriment of global corporations), there was no such party to vote for. Bliar's labour certainly had a globalist agenda, with its importation of cheap labour, etc, as that party continues to have right now, despite producing its 'true socialism' messages supposedly to the contrary. As a result of globalisation, the incredible talent and skills that existed in this country have been eroded away, to be replaced with mediocrity and (through corporate advertising aimed at the gullible) the belief that everyone must have it 'all', even while incurring massive debt, though much of the 'all' is in reality transient rubbish that no one actually 'needs'.

The elderly are now being used as scapegoats, perhaps as a prelude to getting hold of any assets they have built up through their hard work over decades. Careful what you wish for – that would hit the old inheritance, wouldn't it?

Rusty_Shackleton

Sapphire, it could be argued that there was no political party to vote for with those policies, because there was no demand for those policies. Politicians are nothing if not opportunistic!

Dont get me wrong, i dont blame baby boomers on a personal level, but collectively I feel theyve failed where the generation before them did not, and in a way not seen in some other countries. There is no question the country has become more individualistic in recent generations... Hell, thatcherism follows the philosophy of ayn rand. I dont wish to 'punish' older people, any more than women wanting equal pay want to 'punish' their male counterparts.

BobQ

[

cogito wrote: »

Dennis Healey was the Chancellor who promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. He raised the top rate of income tax to 83% and other taxes on dividends brought the rate up to 98%. The rich left the country so paid no tax at all. Classic example of the Laffer Curve in action. It's more than just a theory.

Undoubtedly they did. The question is does it matter. To get back to Brexit, on of my concerns is people in this country that were so desperate to leave the EU that they were willing to accept that the nation would be poorer t achieve. I take the view that if people leave the country to avoid tax then let them - that is a price worth paying. Wereally do not need unpatriotic people like that. That said a consequence of Brexit is that it will matter more if we are stupid enough to treat "controlling immigration" as meaning reducing it to below the level we need for maintaining skills. But so called superstars and celebrities who choose to leave are people we can do with out.

gfplux

An interesting piece about "low paid immigrants"

Are you earning less than a low paid immigrant.

The research mentioned puts low pay as anyone earning less than £30,000. The article points out that the "average" salary is £26,300.
https://infacts.org/fake_news_posts/earning-less-low-paid-eu-migrant/

Note Infacts are anti Brexit but they are quoting facts not opinions.

"Here’s a good example of how misleading statistics can find their way into an otherwise objective piece of journalism. In a recent BBC News article headlined “UK looks to keep visa-free travel from EU”, a quote from Migration Watch chairman Andrew Green read:

“The point is that a work permit system for EU workers would lead, in due course, to a massive decrease in net migration from the EU as low-paid workers (who comprise some 80% of the inflow) are squeezed out.”

Is that statistic true? Are 80% of EU immigrants to the UK taking up low-paid jobs? Well, it depends on your definition of low paid.

Migration Watch sets a fairly high threshold – an annual salary of at least £30,000. The think- tank has used this 80% figure before to qualify the proportion of “low-skilled” EU migrants entering the UK. Green is using “low paid” interchangeably with “low skilled”, which is interpreted in this Migration Watch policy proposal as anyone not eligible for a Tier 2 (General) work visa. This is generally reserved for those earning £30,000 or more.

Brexiters have used similarly high thresholds to make arguments on migration before. For example, former Ukip MEP Steven Woolfe set the bar at £35,000 in a report for Leave Means Leave advocating a “five-year freeze on unskilled migration”."

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Sapphire, it could be argued that there was no political party to vote for with those policies, because there was no demand for those policies. Politicians are nothing if not opportunistic!

Dont get me wrong, i dont blame baby boomers on a personal level, but collectively I feel theyve failed where the generation before them did not, and in a way not seen in some other countries. There is no question the country has become more individualistic in recent generations... Hell, thatcherism follows the philosophy of ayn rand. I dont wish to 'punish' older people, any more than women wanting equal pay want to 'punish' their male counterparts.

When do you think they failed most of the things you sight selling council houses etc started with thatcher who was elected in 79 when many boomers were not voting age and they were certainly not the largest voting block. In the 79 election Tories got 43% of vote so many people did not support Thatcher yet you still want to collectively blame an entire generation.

BobQ

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Sapphire, it could be argued that there was no political party to vote for with those policies, because there was no demand for those policies. Politicians are nothing if not opportunistic!

Dont get me wrong, i dont blame baby boomers on a personal level, but collectively I feel theyve failed where the generation before them did not, and in a way not seen in some other countries. There is no question the country has become more individualistic in recent generations... Hell, thatcherism follows the philosophy of ayn rand. I dont wish to 'punish' older people, any more than women wanting equal pay want to 'punish' their male counterparts.

While there is some truth in this its quite dangerous to generalise. Being on the edge of the Baby Boomer category, I did benefit from a free university education.

The problem has been a decision which all parties decided to support to varying degrees which has meant 40% of the population going to university on the premise that they were to earn a lot more afterwards and there were jobs available at higher salaries for them to so. The trouble is that while it was affordable for the state to fund 5% going, they were always going to struggle to fund 40%. Those deciding this have let students down, but to say baby boomers have done this is to ignore the fact that not all baby boomers supported this. People do not vote for individual policies but for polititians the trust and a range of policies that they accept. I cannot recall there was ever an election one on student grants.

That we have become a more selfish nation since Thatcher is I agree self-evident.

Rusty_Shackleton

I find it funny they're called Migration Watch - they certainly watch IMmigration and publish lots of press releases (its not research) about evils of immigration, but they don't seem to take any notice of EMmigration... How we have a society that pushes away some of our talented labour, and export our elderly in rather large numbers to countrys like Spain where, contrary to popular opinion, they are a burden on their new areas.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

When do you think they failed most of the things you sight selling council houses etc started with thatcher who was elected in 79 when many boomers were not voting age and they were certainly not the largest voting block. In the 79 election Tories got 43% of vote so many people did not support Thatcher yet you still want to collectively blame an entire generation.

As a matter of fact selling Council Houses started well before that, in the sixties at least. Right to Buy and preventing Councils rebuilding more council houses was Thatcher's legacy which also lead to increasing homelessness as many tenants joined the property ladder while the real poor were not able to be housed.

Before then Councils were trusted to manage the size of their housing stock.