Super rich tax.

[Park Life 71]

"It's not only that the very rich have colossal wealth, they also overwhelmingly monopolise it. The richest 1% of the population own a quarter of total UK wealth, and the richest half control no less than 94% of total wealth. Ownership of land is even more skewed: 69% of it is owned by 0.3% of the population."

 

Took be my surprise that wealth in the UK was that badly skewed.

 

Need to look at transaction taxes for the stockmarket and banks. I'd go for 1.75% on every transaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/31/how-to-kickstart-uk-economy

[jonasjuice 0]

Screw you hippie, they've earned it!

[Happy Face 29]

The combined wealth of the 6 Walmart heirs = the wealth of the entire bottom 30% of the US.

 

i find comparisons with individuals much more compelling than a non-specific 1% or whatever.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The combined wealth of Noel Edmunds and Peter Stringfellow = 300 x the wealth of the entirety of sub-saharan Africa, with change to spare.

[Monkeys Fist 42417]

The combined wealth of Noel Edmunds and Peter Stringfellow = 300 x the wealth of the entirety of sub-saharan Africa, with change to spare.

Do you begrudge either one of these monumentally talented cultural icons a penny of their hard-earned?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

It is not exactly a secret that Noel Edmunds and Peter Stringfellow are disreputable Eastern-European immigrants--from Latvia and Belarus respectively--who snuck their way into this country via subterfuge and thence proceeded to plunder the benefit system for all they could. Having secured small fortunes through acts of treachery and misdirection, they then went on to launch their careers as masters of smut and euphemism. So, to address your simple and naive question, do I begrudge THEM their 'hard-earned' cash? YES

[Monkeys Fist 42417]

In days gone by , they would be called Empire Builders.

Britain is broken etc etc

[Matt 0]

Need to look at transaction taxes for the stockmarket and banks. I'd go for 1.75% on every transaction.

 

A pretty awful place to start. That tax doesn't take into account the wealth of the counterparties and any tax will be easily circumvented. And it depends what you mean by transaction. Most companies are already facing higher financing costs through the Basel 3 requirements.

 

Equalisation of the capital gains and income tax regimes is an absolute must. Politicians have successfully been distracted by increases in income tax because that supposedly 'targets the wealthy'. Funny, I always thought wealth taxes did that. If wages are fair, income tax is taxing productivity, while wealth taxes tax the cumulative effect of income, which is surely a fairer system.

 

The super-rich of the world are desperately clamouring to get a foothold in Britain in case their country has an Arab Spring / Eurozone meltdown / Khardokovsky moment. Make them pay for it!

[BalarnyStone 0]

One thing that's always perplexed me is why it's considered 'fair' that richer people should pay more tax than the poor. If people were that bothered about fairness, everybody would be paying a flat rate. Would people stand for being charged a different price for a pint, based on how much was in your wallet? Of fucking course not, because that's not an example of fairness at all. It's quite amazing that even in a world where, in percentage terms, rich people on average pay twice as much tax as the rest, that communists like this Parky fella still complain about the rich not paying their 'fair share' and want to get their hands on more of their money.

[NJS 4378]

It's "fair" because only a tiny percentage of rich people "earn" their money. Most wealth is either inherited directly or comes through priviledged network access which is usually restricted.

[Matt 0]

I guess it depends if you can offset the cost of the pint against taxable profits.

[BalarnyStone 0]

It's "fair" because only a tiny percentage of rich people "earn" their money. Most wealth is either inherited directly or comes through priviledged network access which is usually restricted.

 

That's fair is it? For a start, it's clearly speculative bullshit - I'd wager that you couldn't even guess with any kind of accuracy at all just how many of the Times rich list are actually privelaged inheritors, and how many are actually company directors. Second, I'd bet you'd be fucking fuming if you were ever taxed on the basis of how hard someone else in your office worked - or worse, based on how hard someone else who knows nothing about them, thought that they worked.

[BalarnyStone 0]

I guess it depends if you can offset the cost of the pint against taxable profits.

 

Or whether you can pay for it out of government hand outs for being 'sick'....

[NJS 4378]

 

 

That's fair is it? For a start, it's clearly speculative bullshit - I'd wager that you couldn't even guess with any kind of accuracy at all just how many of the Times rich list are actually privelaged inheritors, and how many are actually company directors. Second, I'd bet you'd be fucking fuming if you were ever taxed on the basis of how hard someone else in your office worked - or worse, based on how hard someone else who knows nothing about them, thought that they worked.

 

The royal family and the duke of westminster are my starter for about 7 billion.

[Matt 0]

Or whether you can pay for it out of government hand outs for being 'sick'....

 

That doesn't change the effective cost of the pint, though.

 

Not that it stops it being a shit example. The price of a non-essential product which is easily substituted for other drinks of varying price and quality against a mechanism that is designed to ensure a certain level of basic living standards and opportunities being afforded to all inhabitants of a country.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Matt

[Park Life 71]

A pretty awful place to start. That tax doesn't take into account the wealth of the counterparties and any tax will be easily circumvented. And it depends what you mean by transaction. Most companies are already facing higher financing costs through the Basel 3 requirements.

 

Equalisation of the capital gains and income tax regimes is an absolute must. Politicians have successfully been distracted by increases in income tax because that supposedly 'targets the wealthy'. Funny, I always thought wealth taxes did that. If wages are fair, income tax is taxing productivity, while wealth taxes tax the cumulative effect of income, which is surely a fairer system.

 

The super-rich of the world are desperately clamouring to get a foothold in Britain in case their country has an Arab Spring / Eurozone meltdown / Khardokovsky moment. Make them pay for it!

 

I think the non-dom arrangement is still only 40k. I'd make it £1m. Not going to bother the likes of Abramovich.

[Park Life 71]

One thing that's always perplexed me is why it's considered 'fair' that richer people should pay more tax than the poor. If people were that bothered about fairness, everybody would be paying a flat rate. Would people stand for being charged a different price for a pint, based on how much was in your wallet? Of fucking course not, because that's not an example of fairness at all. It's quite amazing that even in a world where, in percentage terms, rich people on average pay twice as much tax as the rest, that communists like this Parky fella still complain about the rich not paying their 'fair share' and want to get their hands on more of their money.

 

You clueless gimp. The really rich in the UK PAY NO TAX.

[BalarnyStone 0]

The royal family and the duke of westminster are my starter for about 7 billion.

 

So....2 out of 100. Well done. All we need to do now is find two people in your earning bracket that don't really deserve their wage according to some random bloke on the street's assesment of their lives, and then we can start cahrging you whatever tax-rate you think is fair.

[BalarnyStone 0]

That doesn't change the effective cost of the pint, though.

 

Not that it stops it being a shit example. The price of a non-essential product which is easily substituted for other drinks of varying price and quality against a mechanism that is designed to ensure a certain level of basic living standards and opportunities being afforded to all inhabitants of a country.

 

Income tax is there to fund the government. The rest is a pretty fanciful wishlist, which no government of any kind on the planet has acheived, whatever their tax policies.

[BalarnyStone 0]

You clueless gimp. The really rich in the UK PAY NO TAX.

 

I think you'll find that's total bollocks.

[Park Life 71]

I think you'll find that's total bollocks.

 

I don't think you have the faintest clue what you're on about. Top wumming.

[BalarnyStone 0]

I don't think you have the faintest clue what you're on about. Top wumming.

 

I don't have a clue? You're the tool who just claimed the super rich don't pay any tax at all, you utter buffoon.

[Park Life 71]

I don't have a clue? You're the tool who just claimed the super rich don't pay any tax at all, you utter buffoon.

 

I've had shits more intelligent than YOU.

 

"I've at last got my bill to ban non-dom and non-resident peers into law – five of them had to leave the Lords, and Lord Ashcroft has had to come onshore at last. Millions of people living in the UK can be non-doms if they want for tax purposes, but the really rich hit the jackpot, paying no British tax at all – income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax – on all the assets and earnings they keep offshore. The £30,000-a-year payment non-doms can make to keep their offshore pots of gold tax-free is just a flea bite for the fat cats. What, £30,000 for Roman Abramovich? That hardly pays for a round of drinks at Stamford Bridge at half-time.

Britain's tax gap is officially estimated at £42bn of avoidance, evasion and fraud. Without that legacy of neglect and incompetence Gordon Brown left at the Treasury, last week's cuts would only have been half as deep. The coalition agreement says: "We will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals." Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has made a good start by announcing that the government will spend £200m annually to raise HMRC's tax take by £7bn a year to 2015. That would be a fantastic return on investment. But why is tax collection so feeble, and why aren't we investing even more with those returns?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Park Life

[Kitman 2204]

A pretty awful place to start. That tax doesn't take into account the wealth of the counterparties and any tax will be easily circumvented. And it depends what you mean by transaction. Most companies are already facing higher financing costs through the Basel 3 requirements.

 

Equalisation of the capital gains and income tax regimes is an absolute must. Politicians have successfully been distracted by increases in income tax because that supposedly 'targets the wealthy'. Funny, I always thought wealth taxes did that. If wages are fair, income tax is taxing productivity, while wealth taxes tax the cumulative effect of income, which is surely a fairer system.

 

The super-rich of the world are desperately clamouring to get a foothold in Britain in case their country has an Arab Spring / Eurozone meltdown / Khardokovsky moment. Make them pay for it!

 

I believe it's generally accepted that a lower tax rate actually collects more tax. One of the problems with the UK tax system is it's a bugger's muddle of taxes with different taxes being bolted onto a system which was designed to deal with 19th century land owners. Some taxes are antiquated for the modern age (stamp duty), some are so full of loopholes and exemptions they don't work (CGT, IHT), there's no point to national insurance levies, most of it is tough to understand for the layman. The Inland Revenue struggle with it as well, are under resourced and many of the older and wiser heads have seen their pensions undermined and taken early retirement. The rich are well advised and pay relatively little tax and those who can't afford good advice are denied equality.

 

It needs somebody to rip it up and start again imo with the principles of simplicity, fairness, ease of administration and harmony. It'll never happen because it's a vote loser.

[Park Life 71]

I believe it's generally accepted that a lower tax rate actually collects more tax. One of the problems with the UK tax system is it's a bugger's muddle of taxes with different taxes being bolted onto a system which was designed to deal with 19th century land owners. Some taxes are antiquated for the modern age (stamp duty), some are so full of loopholes and exemptions they don't work (CGT, IHT), there's no point to national insurance levies, most of it is tough to understand for the layman. The Inland Revenue struggle with it as well, are under resourced and many of the older and wiser heads have seen their pensions undermined and taken early retirement. The rich are well advised and pay relatively little tax and those who can't afford good advice are denied equality.

 

It needs somebody to rip it up and start again imo with the principles of simplicity, fairness, ease of administration and harmony. It'll never happen because it's a vote loser.

 

We're busy recovering 5bn£ from Swiss banks in hidden wealth by the rich in the UK.

 

Sir Phillip Green is avoiding 265m a year in tax by living in Monaco for a few months.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Park Life