What extra taxes would you volunteer to pay?

sevenhills

GreatApe wrote: »

I haven't thought this through enough but would say a much higher VAT on cars help the UK economy?

Say cars had a VAT of 100% what would the result be?.

Lewis Hamilton avoided taxes on £16.5m jet using Isle of Man scheme.
I agree with the principle, we should have a basic VAT rate and a higher rate, as some other countries have.
The higher rate should be 25% or less, to avoid tax evasion. Would it work though?

John-K_3

zagubov wrote: »

Yes in the UK the thresh-hold should be set lower.

Why's that a problem for anybody?

One argument against it is that you take massive productivity out of the economy if you tell successful people in their middle age that much of what they willl earn in the future will go to the state.

Leaving aside moral questions, the idea that you will pass wealth down the generations is a strong driver, and we tend to want able, high earners to keep earning.

Thrugelmir

John-K wrote: »

Leaving aside moral questions, the idea that you will pass wealth down the generations is a strong driver, .

History is littered with stories where one generation literally gambles the inheritance away. Arguably the state is better placed to spend the money on capital projects.

zagubov

economic wrote: »

you could also say if someone on death has wealth that does not belong to him anymore, then someone who has milked the taxpayers by being unproductive should be a slave to society to pay for it.

Do you mean the unproductive should pass all their debt to their own offspring who would be obliged to pay it off with their money, or, by labour, working extra hours until they have cleared their parents debt? :think:

John-K wrote: »

One argument against it is that you take massive productivity out of the economy if you tell successful people in their middle age that much of what they willl earn in the future will go to the state.

Leaving aside moral questions, the idea that you will pass wealth down the generations is a strong driver, and we tend to want able, high earners to keep earning.

Only guessing but it might be better that the state pays for better roads and harbour facilities before millionaires kids fritter away their money on the sports cars and yachts that would need to use them. Plus the law enforcement and coastguard services to maintain such property and the lives of their owners.

Why does a unit of organisation like the family have an innately better grasp of the big picture of the needs of future society than a government?

Before anybody bangs on about how families can be wiser than society in general, I get that it worked for Noah and his immediate family, but we need a better-informed and better-resourced system of transferring resources to produce a sustainable future than families can guarantee.

John-K_3

Thrugelmir wrote: »

History is littered with stories where one generation literally gambles the inheritance away. Arguably the state is better placed to spend the money on capital projects.

I do not think that that is a reply to my point which was not about who is best placed to spend it, it was about how people may not bother to accumulate the money in the first place if they know the state will take much of it.

John-K_3

zagubov wrote: »

Only guessing but it might be better that the state pays for better roads and harbour facilities before millionaires kids fritter away their money on the sports cars and yachts that would need to use them. Plus the law enforcement and coastguard services to maintain such property and the lives of their owners.

You seem not to have read my point, you have just launched into an unrelated argument.

I will try again.

One argument against inheritance taxes is that they discourage productive people from being productive, nudging them towards retiring early and spending their money (often abroad).

This can actually reduce the tax take, and drop the net output of society by removing skilled, able, productive people from the pool of those contributing.

Herzlos

economic wrote: »

fine if thats how you want it, no one will work too hard, they will work hard enough to live on thats it, no one will want to grow a business if they know it will all go to "society" and no one will bother producing better goods and services as a result..

That argument is used against all taxes the rich pay, and it's largely nonsense.
You're not going to retire early and live a more modest life because the state will take a bit of it when you die. You'll just avoid having a giant pot by spending it enjoying yourself or helping out your dependents.

Top rate tax doesn't seem to have stopped the wealth creators.

Thrugelmir

John-K wrote: »

I do not think that that is a reply to my point which was not about who is best placed to spend it, it was about how people may not bother to accumulate the money in the first place if they know the state will take much of it.

Much wealth is generated from the inflation induced policies of post war Governments. The expansion of the money supply. Deregulation of the banks from the early 70's until the GFC. Not from people actually being productive, i.e. entrepreneurs working all hours to build a business from scratch.

Thrugelmir

John-K wrote: »

One argument against inheritance taxes is that they discourage productive people from being productive, nudging them towards retiring early and spending their money (often abroad).

This is equally about the distribution of wealth, the ability to retire at a young age. With money it's easier to make more money. Having the capital is the key.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

That argument is used against all taxes the rich pay, and it's largely nonsense.
You're not going to retire early and live a more modest life because the state will take a bit of it when you die. You'll just avoid having a giant pot by spending it enjoying yourself or helping out your dependents.

Top rate tax doesn't seem to have stopped the wealth creators.

You are right many rich men keep on working because of the status I've known people with ten of millions who couldn't spend it all if they tried yet they continue to work. Hence why the state can collect so much of its taxes from income (NI ENI IT)

However wealth taxes and especially Inheritences taxes are different
People won't stop working, they will just retire to a lower tax nation.
If you have $20 million in assets why stay in the UK where you will pay close to $8 million in tax on death. Just go live in the states and pay 0 million. Or one of the many other nations with more reasonable death taxes.

But of course the truly rich will never pay death taxes they will just pay accountants and financial advisers to set it up so they don't need to pay it. We accept this because if we made that impossible we would say goodbye to the rich and their capital.

So sadly the death taxes are taxes on mostly unlucky people (die unexpectedly) or those who are modestly wealthy and have no idea of the existence of the death taxes.