We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tax on wealth suggested
Comments
-
AnotherJoe said:itwasntme001 said:Something needs to be done and someone's gonna have to pay. It will be done via some combination of taxes and inflation. Unless there is a miracle and a new source of wealth magically appears.The problem with inflation is that you can't implement it without some form of default on government index linked liabilities (state pensions and DB pensions).The problem with taxes is that what is palatable (higher CGT, lower pension and ISA allowances) is not going to be nearly enough.I think it is reasonable to expect a wealth tax as, since the pandemic benefited asset owners, the asset owners need to pay the stimulus back. And for the wealth tax to work well enough without harming the economy, it needs to be a globally coordinated wealth tax so that it applies to all citizens in the developed world. Since most developed countries are in a lot of debt, it should be pretty easy to implement.How did the pandemic benefit people who owned "assets"? For example people whose assets were shares in oil companies, airlines, retailers, the FTSE100 or 250 "because they are investing in Britain"?Or if they own a house, that they are now struggling to afford since they were furloughed or fired, how is additionally taxing them on that house going to help the recovery when it puts them further in debt?Fiscal and monetary support obviously supports asset prices. Your examples of people holding the worst possible stocks for 2020 for a significant part of their portfolio is just an outlier.Someone who owns a house and is struggling to keep up with their payments because they are unemployed most likely would not fall in the threshold for a wealth tax to be applicable (e.g. £1m). In the unlikely case that they are, they have clearly over extended themselves and should just be forced to downsize to be able to better afford mortgage payments and the tax. This also frees up the expensive house to a family who can better afford it.1
-
thegentleway said:
I agree with fewer politicians and smaller state but that doesn’t solve inequality. If you let things get too bad then you end up with Trump, etc...A._Badger said:
And replace it with the tyranny of the state? Bureaucrats and (inevitably corrupt) politicians apportioning other people's possessions and assets based on what they consider to be fair and equal? No, thank you. Most of the trouble this country is in now is the result of the actions of incompetent politicians. We need less of it, not more.thegentleway said:
It’s not just the socialists that want to improve tax system. I’m conservative and generally want more capitalism but the hoarding of wealth and inequality needs addressing before it turns to tyranny.Malkytheheed said:If you tax the wealthy to a unpalatable level they will leave. Then what are you left with? A country full of socialists with no money to go around.
Forgive me if I doubt that you are really a conservative (either with or without a capital C). As for Donald Trump, I'm not sure what you think he has to do with it - certainly not with the 'inequality' that you are concerned about, for which, in any case, death duties in this country have largely done for in terms of inheritance - ask the National Trust.thegentleway said:
I agree with fewer politicians and smaller state but that doesn’t solve inequality. If you let things get too bad then you end up with Trump, etc...A._Badger said:
And replace it with the tyranny of the state? Bureaucrats and (inevitably corrupt) politicians apportioning other people's possessions and assets based on what they consider to be fair and equal? No, thank you. Most of the trouble this country is in now is the result of the actions of incompetent politicians. We need less of it, not more.thegentleway said:
It’s not just the socialists that want to improve tax system. I’m conservative and generally want more capitalism but the hoarding of wealth and inequality needs addressing before it turns to tyranny.Malkytheheed said:If you tax the wealthy to a unpalatable level they will leave. Then what are you left with? A country full of socialists with no money to go around.
If your concern is with inequality of income, so long as I am comfortable, why should it trouble me if some footballer earns more in a year than I will in a decade?
2 -
In what way is it a weak argument? I have known more than a few tradesmen and small business owners who have consciously avoided growing or expanding their businesses because 'it's not worth it'. High taxation is a very real disincentive. It also encourages tax evasion so tends to be self-defeating.thegentleway said:
You’re welcome to your opinion but I think it’s the same logic:zagfles said:
No it isn't. The PPs point seems to be that we are encouraged to support ourselves in retirement by paying into a pension, if the government keep changing the goalposts about how they're taxed etc then that's similar to retrospective taxation, and it will cause people to lose faith in pension savings. Nothing at all like whinging about taxes on employment income. If the govt put taxes on employment income up then people can decide eg not to work overtime etc in the future because it's not worth it. Rather than retrospectively getting a bill for extra tax on the overtime they worked in the past.thegentleway said:
You can use that argument to make out all taxation is unfair. E.g. I work hard at my job so it’s unfair that the government takes a cut of my income.Black_Cat2 said:Being taxed on how much your pension is worth seems unfair to me (if I read this correctly?). We are encouraged to pay what we can into one to support our retirement so how is it then fair to bring in a tax on it now? DC and DB pensions meant you sacrifice your salary to be entitled to them and take the gamble that your hard earned money may go up as well as down 🤔
I'm the first to admit I've probably missed the point lol, be kind 😘
This kind of selfish greedy thinking doesn’t consider how to pay for defence, healthcare, infrastructure, etc... that we all benefit from. Without government expenditure you wouldn’t have a job or a pension in the first place.
you can’t tax pension coz you discourage people saving for retirement is the same as you can’t tax higher earners more coz you discourage hard work and career progression. It’s the same very weak argument against taxation which you can apply to anything you don’t want taxed.1 -
Then returning when health issues strike.Apodemus said:I suspect more people leave the UK for climate reasons rather than tax reasons,6 -
That would be me, out at 55 plan to come back at 70Thrugelmir said:
Then returning when health issues strike.Apodemus said:I suspect more people leave the UK for climate reasons rather than tax reasons,0 -
We've already been over this several times in previous pages of the thread and I'm bored of going round and round. Consensus is outside of the extemes of Monaco and Venezuela, or a very stupidly designed or badly managed tax system, tax is unlikely to make significant differences in the ways you claim. It's been covered above, can we please move on to the next stage of the argument.A._Badger said:
In what way is it a weak argument? I have known more than a few tradesmen and small business owners who have consciously avoided growing or expanding their businesses because 'it's not worth it'. High taxation is a very real disincentive. It also encourages tax evasion so tends to be self-defeating.thegentleway said:
You’re welcome to your opinion but I think it’s the same logic:zagfles said:
No it isn't. The PPs point seems to be that we are encouraged to support ourselves in retirement by paying into a pension, if the government keep changing the goalposts about how they're taxed etc then that's similar to retrospective taxation, and it will cause people to lose faith in pension savings. Nothing at all like whinging about taxes on employment income. If the govt put taxes on employment income up then people can decide eg not to work overtime etc in the future because it's not worth it. Rather than retrospectively getting a bill for extra tax on the overtime they worked in the past.thegentleway said:
You can use that argument to make out all taxation is unfair. E.g. I work hard at my job so it’s unfair that the government takes a cut of my income.Black_Cat2 said:Being taxed on how much your pension is worth seems unfair to me (if I read this correctly?). We are encouraged to pay what we can into one to support our retirement so how is it then fair to bring in a tax on it now? DC and DB pensions meant you sacrifice your salary to be entitled to them and take the gamble that your hard earned money may go up as well as down 🤔
I'm the first to admit I've probably missed the point lol, be kind 😘
This kind of selfish greedy thinking doesn’t consider how to pay for defence, healthcare, infrastructure, etc... that we all benefit from. Without government expenditure you wouldn’t have a job or a pension in the first place.
you can’t tax pension coz you discourage people saving for retirement is the same as you can’t tax higher earners more coz you discourage hard work and career progression. It’s the same very weak argument against taxation which you can apply to anything you don’t want taxed.
1 -
thegentleway said:
You’re welcome to your opinion but I think it’s the same logic:zagfles said:
No it isn't. The PPs point seems to be that we are encouraged to support ourselves in retirement by paying into a pension, if the government keep changing the goalposts about how they're taxed etc then that's similar to retrospective taxation, and it will cause people to lose faith in pension savings. Nothing at all like whinging about taxes on employment income. If the govt put taxes on employment income up then people can decide eg not to work overtime etc in the future because it's not worth it. Rather than retrospectively getting a bill for extra tax on the overtime they worked in the past.thegentleway said:
You can use that argument to make out all taxation is unfair. E.g. I work hard at my job so it’s unfair that the government takes a cut of my income.Black_Cat2 said:Being taxed on how much your pension is worth seems unfair to me (if I read this correctly?). We are encouraged to pay what we can into one to support our retirement so how is it then fair to bring in a tax on it now? DC and DB pensions meant you sacrifice your salary to be entitled to them and take the gamble that your hard earned money may go up as well as down 🤔
I'm the first to admit I've probably missed the point lol, be kind 😘
This kind of selfish greedy thinking doesn’t consider how to pay for defence, healthcare, infrastructure, etc... that we all benefit from. Without government expenditure you wouldn’t have a job or a pension in the first place.
you can’t tax pension coz you discourage people saving for retirement is the same as you can’t tax higher earners more coz you discourage hard work and career progression. It’s the same very weak argument against taxation which you can apply to anything you don’t want taxed.You're not getting it.The encouragement to pay into a pension is that it is tax advantageous. If people see the govt changing the rules after they've paid in, when there's nothing they can do about it in most cases, then they may not trust pensions as a good investment vehicle because the rules keep changing at the whim on govt. Pensions are long term investments and need long term stability in their rules so people can have some faith that the tax (and other) benefits of pensions will stay broadly the same before committing money that they won't be able to access for several decades in some cases.A completely, totally different issue to "I won't work hard because the govt takes more of TODAY's earnings in taxes". They know the score BEFORE they decide whether or not to "work hard".5 -
Another_Saver said:
We've already been over this several times in previous pages of the thread and I'm bored of going round and round. Consensus is outside of the extemes of Monaco and Venezuela, or a very stupidly designed or badly managed tax system, tax is unlikely to make significant differences in the ways you claim. It's been covered above, can we please move on to the next stage of the argument.A._Badger said:
In what way is it a weak argument? I have known more than a few tradesmen and small business owners who have consciously avoided growing or expanding their businesses because 'it's not worth it'. High taxation is a very real disincentive. It also encourages tax evasion so tends to be self-defeating.thegentleway said:
You’re welcome to your opinion but I think it’s the same logic:zagfles said:
No it isn't. The PPs point seems to be that we are encouraged to support ourselves in retirement by paying into a pension, if the government keep changing the goalposts about how they're taxed etc then that's similar to retrospective taxation, and it will cause people to lose faith in pension savings. Nothing at all like whinging about taxes on employment income. If the govt put taxes on employment income up then people can decide eg not to work overtime etc in the future because it's not worth it. Rather than retrospectively getting a bill for extra tax on the overtime they worked in the past.thegentleway said:
You can use that argument to make out all taxation is unfair. E.g. I work hard at my job so it’s unfair that the government takes a cut of my income.Black_Cat2 said:Being taxed on how much your pension is worth seems unfair to me (if I read this correctly?). We are encouraged to pay what we can into one to support our retirement so how is it then fair to bring in a tax on it now? DC and DB pensions meant you sacrifice your salary to be entitled to them and take the gamble that your hard earned money may go up as well as down 🤔
I'm the first to admit I've probably missed the point lol, be kind 😘
This kind of selfish greedy thinking doesn’t consider how to pay for defence, healthcare, infrastructure, etc... that we all benefit from. Without government expenditure you wouldn’t have a job or a pension in the first place.
you can’t tax pension coz you discourage people saving for retirement is the same as you can’t tax higher earners more coz you discourage hard work and career progression. It’s the same very weak argument against taxation which you can apply to anything you don’t want taxed.That "consensus" doesn't seem to be shared by the BMA.
3 -
A._Badger said:
Forgive me if I doubt that you are really a conservative (either with or without a capital C). As for Donald Trump, I'm not sure what you think he has to do with it - certainly not with the 'inequality' that you are concerned about, for which, in any case, death duties in this country have largely done for in terms of inheritance - ask the National Trust.thegentleway said:
I agree with fewer politicians and smaller state but that doesn’t solve inequality. If you let things get too bad then you end up with Trump, etc...A._Badger said:
And replace it with the tyranny of the state? Bureaucrats and (inevitably corrupt) politicians apportioning other people's possessions and assets based on what they consider to be fair and equal? No, thank you. Most of the trouble this country is in now is the result of the actions of incompetent politicians. We need less of it, not more.thegentleway said:
It’s not just the socialists that want to improve tax system. I’m conservative and generally want more capitalism but the hoarding of wealth and inequality needs addressing before it turns to tyranny.Malkytheheed said:If you tax the wealthy to a unpalatable level they will leave. Then what are you left with? A country full of socialists with no money to go around.
If your concern is with inequality of income, so long as I am comfortable, why should it trouble me if some footballer earns more in a year than I will in a decade?More than happy to forgive you for the incorrect assumptions you make about me.In the past, when the aristocracy pushes too far, kings/ruling elite have been beheaded. Keep going with inequality and you threaten the stability of our society.You completely misunderstand what inequality I'm concerned about. I'm all for people earning more if they add more value.
For clarification: my main concern is inequality of opportunity.
No one has ever become poor by giving0 -
I'm genuinely confused as to how 1% tax could be construed as high taxation? Compare UK tax to other countries and you'll see it's low.A._Badger said:
In what way is it a weak argument? I have known more than a few tradesmen and small business owners who have consciously avoided growing or expanding their businesses because 'it's not worth it'. High taxation is a very real disincentive. It also encourages tax evasion so tends to be self-defeating.thegentleway said:
You’re welcome to your opinion but I think it’s the same logic:zagfles said:
No it isn't. The PPs point seems to be that we are encouraged to support ourselves in retirement by paying into a pension, if the government keep changing the goalposts about how they're taxed etc then that's similar to retrospective taxation, and it will cause people to lose faith in pension savings. Nothing at all like whinging about taxes on employment income. If the govt put taxes on employment income up then people can decide eg not to work overtime etc in the future because it's not worth it. Rather than retrospectively getting a bill for extra tax on the overtime they worked in the past.thegentleway said:
You can use that argument to make out all taxation is unfair. E.g. I work hard at my job so it’s unfair that the government takes a cut of my income.Black_Cat2 said:Being taxed on how much your pension is worth seems unfair to me (if I read this correctly?). We are encouraged to pay what we can into one to support our retirement so how is it then fair to bring in a tax on it now? DC and DB pensions meant you sacrifice your salary to be entitled to them and take the gamble that your hard earned money may go up as well as down 🤔
I'm the first to admit I've probably missed the point lol, be kind 😘
This kind of selfish greedy thinking doesn’t consider how to pay for defence, healthcare, infrastructure, etc... that we all benefit from. Without government expenditure you wouldn’t have a job or a pension in the first place.
you can’t tax pension coz you discourage people saving for retirement is the same as you can’t tax higher earners more coz you discourage hard work and career progression. It’s the same very weak argument against taxation which you can apply to anything you don’t want taxed.
No one has ever become poor by giving0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards