The Labour Government

hampshireblue said:
Very good post.

I'm just an average man in the street, but even in my circle I know someone whose pension has grown by over £200k in the last 12 months. Apart from having the pension in the first place, he has done absolutely nothing in the last year to increase his "wealth" over that period. Yes, he pays tax as he is in drawdown but would a 1%. in his case, £2k have a massive impact on him? I bet his portfolio varies by several £1000 every week, so a one off 1% withdrawal straight from the fund once a year really wouldn't cause a major hardship. To put it into context, my friend wouldn't even be affected as the proposal is that would only apply on over £10m.
Click to expand...
You are missing one thing with this, you are only considering who you perceive to be wealthy by what they hold but you're missing how pension funds work. If you have a private pension then your pension is not a fund within itself. Most invest their pensions within a much larger fund and these funds buy into assets worth tens of billions.

Most would have to pay this tax because of the assets held by the pension fund. How much do funds appreciate per year on average? 5-10%? Would you happily remove 1% from your pension value per year?

Most people won't accept this, they want to maximise their pension and part of that means being tax-efficient. I do it myself, I am a tax avoider because I earn over £50k and put more into my pension to pay less tax because every £1 I earn over £50k is taxed at 40%. I could just accept that 40% is taxed and keep 60% and forget about it but I don't accept giving my money away so why would the rich think differently?

1% may seem like nothing but we'd all rather pay nothing and the rich are far more capable of finding ways to pay less. The problem is we want great public services but the evidence is we're simply not willing to pay for it. We see it on here, everybody comes up with various tax solutions where the main factor is it isn't them paying.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
You are missing one thing with this, you are only considering who you perceive to be wealthy by what they hold but you're missing how pension funds work. If you have a private pension then your pension is not a fund within itself. Most invest their pensions within a much larger fund and these funds buy into assets worth tens of billions.

Most would have to pay this tax because of the assets held by the pension fund. How much do funds appreciate per year on average? 5-10%? Would you happily remove 1% from your pension value per year?

Most people won't accept this, they want to maximise their pension and part of that means being tax-efficient. I do it myself, I am a tax avoider because I earn over £50k and put more into my pension to pay less tax because every £1 I earn over £50k is taxed at 40%. I could just accept that 40% is taxed and keep 60% and forget about it but I don't accept giving my money away so why would the rich think differently?

1% may seem like nothing but we'd all rather pay nothing and the rich are far more capable of finding ways to pay less. The problem is we want great public services but the evidence is we're simply not willing to pay for it. We see it on here, everybody comes up with various tax solutions but the main factor is generally they're great providing that they don't involve them.
Click to expand...
I must disagree here, plenty have said they would pay more, also if we based our tax system on what people want to pay the coffers would be in serious trouble.

The fact you say you earn good money but dont want to give even a small amount away just proves what a.......... I aint even gonna say it, I hope you end up paying that 1% and it irks you. People like you are the problem.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
You are missing one thing with this, you are only considering who you perceive to be wealthy by what they hold but you're missing how pension funds work. If you have a private pension then your pension is not a fund within itself. Most invest their pensions within a much larger fund and these funds buy into assets worth tens of billions.

Most would have to pay this tax because of the assets held by the pension fund. How much do funds appreciate per year on average? 5-10%? Would you happily remove 1% from your pension value per year?

Most people won't accept this, they want to maximise their pension and part of that means being tax-efficient. I do it myself, I am a tax avoider because I earn over £50k and put more into my pension to pay less tax because every £1 I earn over £50k is taxed at 40%. I could just accept that 40% is taxed and keep 60% and forget about it but I don't accept giving my money away so why would the rich think differently?

1% may seem like nothing but we'd all rather pay nothing and the rich are far more capable of finding ways to pay less. The problem is we want great public services but the evidence is we're simply not willing to pay for it. We see it on here, everybody comes up with various tax solutions where the main factor is it isn't them paying.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your first point. You seem to be saying that it’s hard for pension funds or the individual to pay the tax that’s simply not true.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Hilarious that he thinks the fact she was doing her best is some form of mitigation to her performance in office. It’s an aggravating, not a mitigating feature, and simply serves to underline how completely unfit for office, any public office in fact, that she was.

There are crack heads In Piccadilly Gardens who would do a better job as PM than Liz Truss.
Click to expand...
She has got even worse since she left gone down conspiracy near far right pro America Trump route. Makes you wonder who the real. Liz Truss was the nobody MP that was ok the really bad PM or the complete nutter post PM.
 
WRicko said:
She has got even worse since she left gone down conspiracy near far right pro America Trump route. Makes you wonder who the real. Liz Truss was the nobody MP that was ok the really bad PM or the complete nutter post PM.
Click to expand...
Power does funny things to people and something I’ve observed over the years is when people are promoted way beyond their abilities they are often insufferable when they take up their new roles, possibly as a form of overcompensation.

Or maybe she was just a **** all along.
 
NPBlue said:
Tax wealth, not work. It worked well in the past for a short while, and stop listening to those that want to crush us all and take us back into the grinding poverty that was the norm for centuries.
Click to expand...
I completely and disagree with that. I think it's wrong on every level.

First, taxes on wealth are extremely poor at actually collecting tax. It's quite difficult to not work, or to not buy anything, so taxes on employment and on spending are very efficient with extremely high collection rates. Unlike taxes on wealth.

The latter cause people to change their behaviour, because guess what, no-one like paying high rates of tax. So if you have a million in an investment account and were planning on liquidating some of it, then if the capital gains tax is too high, you don't bother. You sit on your money waiting for the day when the rate might be lower or the allowances higher, so often less tax is actually collected than before the rate went up.

And taxing people on all their assets is extremely expensive and difficult to calculate. What is YOUR net worth? I have no idea what mine is. How on earth is the HMRC supposed to work that out? They'd need years and an army of people and it would be open to huge amounts of tax evasion with people with vast undeclared assets.

So, no, wealth taxes don't work. But then there's my second point. They are grossly unfair. People go about their daily lives and they earn money and unless they are criminals, they pay their taxes in full compliance with the law. Some of them get rich by their efforts and have wealth that they have accumulated fair and square. What right do you have to say "look at that bloke, he's rich, let's have some of his money off him". It's completely immoral. Legalised theft.

So it's wrong pragmatically and wrong morally. It's just a really bad idea.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I completely and disagree with that. I think it's wrong on every level.

First, taxes on wealth are extremely poor at actually collecting tax. It's quite difficult to not work, or to not buy anything, so taxes on employment and on spending are very efficient with extremely high collection rates. Unlike taxes on wealth.

The latter cause people to change their behaviour, because guess what, no-one like paying high rates of tax. So if you have a million in an investment account and were planning on liquidating some of it, then if the capital gains tax is too high, you don't bother. You sit on your money waiting for the day when the rate might be lower or the allowances higher, so often less tax is actually collected than before the rate went up.

And taxing people on all their assets is extremely expensive and difficult to calculate. What is YOUR net worth? I have no idea what mine is. How on earth is the HMRC supposed to work that out? They'd need years and an army of people and it would be open to huge amounts of tax evasion with people with vast undeclared assets.

So, no, wealth taxes don't work. But then there's my second point. They are grossly unfair. People go about their daily lives and they earn money and unless they are criminals, they pay their taxes in full compliance with the law. Some of them get rich by their efforts and have wealth that they have accumulated fair and square. What right do you have to say "look at that bloke, he's rich, let's have some of his money off him". It's completely immoral. Legalised theft.

So it's wrong pragmatically and wrong morally. It's just a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
How can it be wrong? We tax people now anyhow, no one said you can't add a new tax or increase the rate, its immoral in the slightest.
 
domalino said:
Anything rising less than the rate of inflation, and more importantly rising less than real pay growth is cutting the cost of living.
Click to expand...

Given rail costs are part of inflation calculations which, in turn, feeds into wage growth it’s somewhat self defeating (in regards to your reply) and doesn’t help the cost of living.
 
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