• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

les paul said:
Drivel, as I've already pointed out, wealth inequality is damaging the economy which in turn damages society, this has nothing to do with 'envy' and everything to do with sound economics and a decent society for our kids to enjoy, the envy sneer is just what right wingers trot out any time someone dares mention taxing the rich a bit more, same as 'they'll all leave!'.
Click to expand...

It's not drivel though, there's been loads of reports of millionaires etc leaving. Tax take is already at an all time high and is probably close to the maximum of the laffer curve for most people.

I should say I'm against these type of tax rises but a large reason I'm against it is because I don't trust governments to spend it properly and be accountable for it, I think there'd be less backlash if the government was well run and functioning with a strong track record on delivery and value for money but it doesnt.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
There's not much 'entrepreneurial' culture going on with the people we are talking about. Once upon a time, maybe (and maybe not).
Click to expand...
No not everyone can be an entrepreneur but a property tax for example would hit people other than just millionaires to bring in decent money for the treasury. Take a landlord with one property, they have already paid extra stamp duty, seen their mortgage relief cut and are now paying 2% on top of the income tax rates for ordinary working people. Then you have some of the requirements that form part of the Renters Rights bill which are like a tax. Plus you have to pay capital gains tax when you sell the property (something that foreign home owners won't have to). You may be thinking "Cry me a river," you have 2 homes anyway. But It will put people off letting out their properties which will then reduce the available housing. Also a lot of people rent out their properties in lieu of a work place pension.

There are no easy decisions with tax.

ricky2tricky4city said:
Jeez..I've stated we aren't talking about a big group of people here.
Click to expand...
So we just go after a few rich people? Sounds great. But how much money would that actually bring in?

I am uncomfortable with a policy which might seem anti aspiration.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
Jeez..I've stated we aren't talking about a big group of people here.

Taxed to death, seriously? :)

There's not much 'entrepreneurial' culture going on with the people we are talking about. Once upon a time, maybe (and maybe not).

I'm sure you all know what passive income is? At these levels it's massive. It roles in while literally doing nothing. And what they don't spend, they accumulate more assets, and so on and so on.

Tbh I'm not sure what these people are continuously accumulating for BUT I bet they love the (free) protective shield they receive from randoms defending their position.
Click to expand...
The issue with this is that the proposal s, particularly around revisions to council tax bands particularly on the London area is that significantly impacts ordinary homeowners ( or just the megarich, and ordinary people may no longer be able to afford to stay in their family homes.

My broader concern is that when shortfalls need to be addressed the poor and disadvantaged suffer the most and the middle class also get screwed over.
while the rich, the ultra rich, the oligarchs and global corporations continue to avoid and evade tax with impunity.

If thats what Andy Burnham is offering (more of the same) then i’m out.
 
P.D. said:
It's not drivel though, there's been loads of reports of millionaires etc leaving. Tax take is already at an all time high and is probably close to the maximum of the laffer curve for most people.

I should say I'm against these type of tax rises but a large reason I'm against it is because I don't trust governments to spend it properly and be accountable for it, I think there'd be less backlash if the government was well run and functioning with a strong track record on delivery and value for money but it doesnt.
Click to expand...
No it's drivel, there's been a couple of 'reports' claiming an exodus of wealthy people due to tax rises etc and I've yet to see one that's worth the paper it's written on, the one people tend to quote is the henley and partners report but look at the severe debunking it got handed, lets also not lose sight of the fact that the laffer curve is a theory, not a data backed study. Again, wealth inequality is damaging to the economy, that's according to the IMF and other major voices on the matter, not might be damaging, IS damaging. It stifles growth and holds the economy back. there's no reason not to tax wealth more, and every reason to do it, the proposed 2% and individual assets over £10mn would raise a few billion and more importantly it would be a move in the direction of less wealth inequality.
 
les paul said:
No it's drivel, there's been a couple of 'reports' claiming an exodus of wealthy people due to tax rises etc and I've yet to see one that's worth the paper it's written on, the one people tend to quote is the henley and partners report but look at the severe debunking it got handed, lets also not lose sight of the fact that the laffer curve is a theory, not a data backed study. Again, wealth inequality is damaging to the economy, that's according to the IMF and other major voices on the matter, not might be damaging, IS damaging. It stifles growth and holds the economy back. there's no reason not to tax wealth more, and every reason to do it, the proposed 2% and individual assets over £10mn would raise a few billion and more importantly it would be a move in the direction of less wealth inequality.
Click to expand...

I tend not to pay attention to the IMF, this is also the place that had to issue an apology on austerity, get all their forecasts wrong every single time. But again until you or others can actually answer the basic questions about how such a policy would work it's a non starter - do I sell my business if that equals all my assets, who values it and how, what happens if the economy tanks and it devalues or I sell it for a loss, what would be the appeals for valuation etc etc.
 
P.D. said:
I tend not to pay attention to the IMF, this is also the place that had to issue an apology on austerity, get all their forecasts wrong every single time. But again until you or others can actually answer the basic questions about how such a policy would work it's a non starter - do I sell my business if that equals all my assets, who values it and how, what happens if the economy tanks and it devalues or I sell it for a loss, what would be the appeals for valuation etc etc.
Click to expand...
ahh ok, I didn't factor in you being more financially astute than the IMF, OECD, world bank, UNDP etc etc, I tend not to give much weight to random forum guys trying to talk down wealth taxes by pretending that it's all too complicated and can't be done. Why would you sell your business to avoid paying a 2% tax on assets over £10mn? is your business model that fragile?? insurance companies value stuff all the time, so no issues with valuations, these are all issues that can be taken care of in the design of the tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back