The Labour Government

Chippy_boy said:
No, not really. There are not enough super rich and anyways the super rich are extremely mobile and have huge flexibility in how they can manage their affairs to minimise their taxes. If taxation becomes too penal, they bugger off, leaving those of us on moderate incomes left behind having to pay even more.

From CNN: “The continuing exodus from the UK — 16,500 millionaires left between 2017 and 2023 — is part of a global mass migration of the rich that appears to be accelerating. The Henley Private Wealth Migration report found that 128,000 millionaires are set to relocate this year, beating last year’s record by 8,000.”

“Of the 15 places with most resident millionaires, the UK is suffering more than most — only China will lose more HNWIs (15,200) in 2024”
Click to expand...
1724800022081.jpeg
 
johnnytapia said:
I think you could raise inheritance tax to “eye-watering” levels and it would barely shift the needle in terms of revenue.
We all seemingly want Nordic standards of healthcare etc with US income tax rates. Alas East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet'.
Click to expand...
What pisses me off more than anything is the seemingly pervasive attitude that people want “other people” to pay more. And even more gaulling, these types seeking to claim the moral high ground as if it’s some massive virtue to be generous with someone else’s money.
 
Chippy_boy said:
What pisses me off more than anything is the seemingly pervasive attitude that people want “other people” to pay more. And even more gaulling, these types seeking to claim the moral high ground as if it’s some massive virtue to be generous with someone else’s money.
Click to expand...
Actually a hike in IHT on dwellings will impact on me significantly as things stand. Not everyone is a selfish ****.
 
threespires said:
There was a thoughtful model that a few universities were using that was in the public domain for a fair while, last time I looked for it the link was broke but I'll try and find it. But if I just take my own life...

Born white western european male at a time when that was still like winning the lottery (still not a bad gig even today).

Born to working class parents who were determined that I had a better education and prospects than they did and were prepared to make sacrifices for that to happen. Something that didn't happen for a number of my equally capable friends.

Raised in a council house where there was surety of tenancy and so no real disruptions to family life. Despite also raising a severely disabled son, my parents managed to always keep the wheels on the road and a stable family environment.

Born at a time when social mobility was seen as important so able to get a free higher education and a means tested living allowance.

Through higher education, developed a more rounded understanding of what the world offered and without even being aware of the words, built up social and cultural capital that I was then able to use to gain some economic capital.

First good job I got, there were way better candidates than me but I just hit it off with the interviewers and they offered the job to me when it should probably have gone to others.

2 years into that job, the team I was leading made a fairly catastrophic error. Had my boss been the person I was working for 3 months earlier, I 100% know I'd have been thrown under the bus and fired. But my new boss told me to go home and do nothing while he peeled the MD off the roof.

A company I was working for was bought by a US company and in an early management meeting the simple fact I had a British accent meant that at the point everyone was arguing about something, my voice cut through and within a couple of years I had an exec position.

I could go on but I think the reality is that life is full of both big and small sliding door moments. I also think people often have access to a variety of social and cultural advantages that they don't even realise are advantages.

I'm doing ok but none of that's really down to me if I'm honest. I've messed up as many times as I've done a good job. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth but I was born into a loving environment with strong values at a time when a commitment to social mobility was peaking. I was able to take advantage of that and I've been in the right place at the right time at a number of points in my life and when things have gone wrong I've had always been blessed to have someone or something to fall back on.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I once got a job only to find that 20 other people in the same role had got a union claim in for a higher grade because of the responsibilities of the post. Effectively I got a promotion backdated to before I started!
 
Chippy_boy said:
What pisses me off more than anything is the seemingly pervasive attitude that people want “other people” to pay more. And even more gaulling, these types seeking to claim the moral high ground as if it’s some massive virtue to be generous with someone else’s money.
Click to expand...
Is it pervasive? Or is that just the right wing media?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Completely agree. The sustained increase in property values has created enormous wealth among a certain class of people who have had little to do with that outcome. That metric has created an egregiously unfair inbalance in our society between the generations that desperately needs tackling - and the only feasible way that can happen is to tax those assets in a way that isn’t currently in force.
Click to expand...
I guess we should take 50% of peoples’ lottery wins off them as well then? How about their winnings on their annual Grand National flutter?

What about when someone risks a lot if their wealth on an investment and they get an unexpectedly high return?

My point is that there are a million cases where people gain wealth they did not “earn”. Why should we only penalise those who have done well with their house price, if your “unfair imbalance needs tackling”. Is it unfair when someone wins at the roulette table when the bloke sitting next to them doesn’t win?
 
metalblue said:
There is a global tax regime coming in. These companies have took the piss for too long.
Click to expand...
Aye I’ll believe that when I see it. And even if it does happen, I can’t imagine getting everyone to agree to anything other than the bare minimum. Let’s be clear, one of the main reasons for brexit was the prospect of the EU threatening the UK and it’s many territories’ status as the leading purveyor of tax evasion.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I guess we should take 50% of peoples’ lottery wins off them as well then? How about their winnings on their annual Grand National flutter?

What about when someone risks a lot if their wealth on an investment and they get an unexpectedly high return?

My point is that there are a million cases where people gain wealth they did not “earn”. Why should we only penalise those who have done well with their house price, if your “unfair imbalance needs tackling”. Is it unfair when someone wins at the roulette table when the bloke sitting next to them doesn’t win?
Click to expand...
You say these things like they're unusual. The USA charges tax on lottery wins and game show prizes. And the UK charged tax on winnings from betting until it was abolished in 2001 by Gordon Brown. As for you unexpectedly high return, for example, on the stock market, it would absolutely be taxed if it hits a certain threshold, as would the sale of any property that isn't your primary residence. It's literally completely normal for all of this stuff to be taxed in plenty of countries.

Ultimately, we've got to tax something. And what's fairer? That the bloke putting in his 50th hour of the week is getting taxed 40% on it because it's gone over the higher rate threshold, or that the bloke who bought a second or third property (or an investment fund bought its 100th), and then sold it a few years later for a profit pays 24% tax on the profit? And of course the person who bought a house and sold it again can claim tax relief for all associated costs throughout the life of owning the property when they sell it. The bloke working overtime can't claim any relief for the plethora of costs associated with making himself employable, be it training courses paid for out of pocket, or transport to work, etc. But not just what is fairer, what's better for the economy? Letting ordinary workers keep more of their income? Or letting someone who is already wealthy keep more of their income? Ordinary people tend to spend their money. Wealthy people tend to use it to buy more assets, further increasing the prices of things like property.

It's worth mentioning that I think we need a rethink in the tax system of what we consider investment these days, and what type of investment we want to encourage. When Nissan says they want to open a new car factory in the UK, that's obviously a positive thing. Or Tata buying up Jaguar, a struggling company, and then within a few years, we have loads of new Jaguar models because they've invested in the brand. But so much 'investment' nowadays is just buying up stuff that already exists, basically contributing nothing to it, and profiting off the fact that there's no competition. It's not investment, it's asset hoarding. Running a train franchise, for example. Buying up energy infrastructure. Buying a huge steel plant, asset stripping it and firing everyone. Or using your pre-existing wealth and creative tax arrangements to undercut every other business on the high street by making 'no profit' for years. I have no issue taxing that sort of 'investment' out of existence, while offering a fair tax regime for companies and individuals that are genuinely contributing to the economy.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Ha, now it looks like Rachel Thieves is going to hit pensioners with moderate pension pots with a limit on how much of the pot can be taken out tax free. Currently it is 25% but Rachel Thieves is looking at putting a limit of 100k on that.
Just as I'm ramping up to retire. a comfortable retirement becomes not so comfortable.
Deep joy!
Click to expand...


If you're over 55 you can access that tax free cash now .... before the Budget.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Read the key takeaways from Starmer’s speech and nothing of a surprise, to be honest.

Would like to see them reverse the NI cuts that Tories made and look to reforming all areas of business, not just rearrange the furniture for the long run.

Hopefully they’ll have enough to bring some of their key pledges to the fore, starting off with the energy and house building pledges. We know it won’t happen overnight but a pick in the ground would be good, to use an analogy.
Click to expand...


And hopefully a review of the Council Tax system so that it doesn't stop at band H....And those that live in massive houses start to contribute .
 
Vic said:
You were caught.

Don't make it worse by being free to think Adam Smith was a socialist.
Click to expand...
Caught lol. Didn't know who Adam Smith was and don't care. But if that makes you and Kobayashi feel better, you guys go for it.

We were having a debate about IHT, I stand by the points I made, it's a deeply unpopular tax in the UK, always has been and I suspect always will be.

It is quite amusing seeing you guys trying to defend every possible policy Labour may bring in or not. A couple of months ago you would of no doubt have been slaughtering the Tories for exactly the same policies. But now the boot is on the other foot .....
 
Chippy_boy said:
I guess we should take 50% of peoples’ lottery wins off them as well then? How about their winnings on their annual Grand National flutter?

What about when someone risks a lot if their wealth on an investment and they get an unexpectedly high return?

My point is that there are a million cases where people gain wealth they did not “earn”. Why should we only penalise those who have done well with their house price, if your “unfair imbalance needs tackling”. Is it unfair when someone wins at the roulette table when the bloke sitting next to them doesn’t win?
Click to expand...
Taxing gambling winnings would be counterproductive because you would need to have allowances for losses. So wank suggestion and hopefully answers the question at the end of your post.

If someone gets an unexpectedly high return on an investment then they have as much reason to complain about paying tax on that as someone whose bonus was higher than expected and they had to pay tax on it. So seems perfectly fair to me.

The reason we need to tax (not penalise) assets is because of the unsustainable imbalance between different generations which means it is virtually impossible for the vast majority of under 35s to buy a property and extremely difficult for the rest of that cohort to even rent one.

Your attitude is redolent of the rest of the generation that was born after WW2 up to the end of the 60s, which is, without question, the most selfish this country has ever produced, and the reason we ended up with the fucking abortion that was Brexit, despite their parent’s generation being the very best of us. Shows what acquiring wealth can do to people’s moral compass.

Tax is a necessary evil. No one likes paying it, but exists to try and make society a little fairier. To correct the imbalances that accrue over time for the common good. Anyone suggesting that the current situation is fair on the young doesn’t have an opinion that is worth a wank, as is anyone’s who doesn’t care.

You must be one or the other.
 
johnnytapia said:
I think you could raise inheritance tax to “eye-watering” levels and it would barely shift the needle in terms of revenue.
We all seemingly want Nordic standards of healthcare etc with US income tax rates. Alas East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet'.
Click to expand...
Quite. If you want Nordic levels of healthcare funded by tax income you need to increase the total tax burden to 50%. Personally, I would have no problem with that but the right would go bananas.
Realism is absent generally speaking.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Spoilt? Jesus Christ you are clueless. Genuinely, I mean that. You have no idea of my personal circumstances.
Click to expand...
Notice you didn't come back to me about your hilarious 10m people claim, the car less bit, the sxi bit and Blackpool bit is called an exaggeration counter argument to show how silly your argument was you silly sod, you didn't get it you dumb ass.

Guess you don't have to be clever to have a bit in this life:-) earnt eh? :-)

Anyhow there are plenty of ways to give kids money and sort them out before one pops their clogs. Some have shit loads though which can make it a tad harder

Blessed are those rolling in it, they may lose a percentage of it sniff!
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
They have indeed.....

www.forbes.com

Coca-Cola Could Face $16 Billion IRS Bill After Its Tax Court Arguments Fall Flat

The case involves transfer pricing, a high stakes issue also at play in IRS fights with Facebook, Medtronic, and Abbott Labs.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that that article was referencing the global corporation tax agreement. However the rate I saw discussed which was 15% is way too low imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globa...orporate tax,the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework.

At the time I read that Sunack voted for this 15% global rate when Chancellor, I did read that the US wanted it placed at a higher rate of 20%. But he and others objected. Shortly afterwards Sunack raised UK corporation tax rates for SMEs to 25 to 40%. It was of course pure coincidence that Sunacks wife Akshata Murty is a billionaire share holder in a multinational company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top