• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
GBDamo

Tax the wealthy out of existence?

Recommended Posts

I'm getting a bit tired of the old argument that taxing the wealthy is taxing wealth creation.

I do believe this was once the case. 

Capital was reinvested to develop opportunities for further wealth creation which in turn distributed some of the wealth amongst those employed.

Now however capital is used to hoover up assets and seek rent or to create monopolies.

Both are destructive.

Monopolies result in creative stagnation as why develope new products when the old has no competition.

Rent seeking is parasitic.

I no longer see any defense against taxing wealth till the pips squeak.

NB, wealth = £1.00 more than my current earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Nah.

Kill rent seeking, especially property and land, and force the money into real investment.

But don't tax wealth, that's counter-productive.

“Intellectual property” is the monster in the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No scheme you ever have to tax 'the rich' will work as long as Trusts exist and lawyers and accountants get paid.

 

Give it up.  Focus on transparency and taxing hard assets in country (such as council tax going up A LOT for high end property)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hail the Tripod said:

“Intellectual property” is the monster in the room.

I was thinking of residential property - IMO all landlords should be driven out of the game with taxation except for HMG who can manage and expand social housing.

As for intellectual property,  not sure how that could be taxed efficiently- isn't your missus Chinese, maybe she'd have an idea? :D

 

2 minutes ago, wherebee said:

No scheme you ever have to tax 'the rich' will work as long as Trusts exist and lawyers and accountants get paid.

 

Give it up.  Focus on transparency and taxing hard assets in country (such as council tax going up A LOT for high end property)

Council tax just gets passed onto the renters by the rentiers. Ownership of any other residential property apart from your own home is what has to be taxed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Nah.

Kill rent seeking, especially property and land, and force the money into real investment.

But don't tax wealth, that's counter-productive.

Inheritance tax should be 90% over a lowish threshold, say 100K.

Income tax should be 90% on earnings over a lowish threshold say 100K.

Accumulation of wealth should be discouraged with extream prejudice.

Capital has been hoovered up and replaced with debt.

 

Taxing wealth, now, will allow the government to go on an infrastructure binge and get the actual liquidity back into the pockets of the people.

I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking at a thread onto which to drop this and this will do.

It's a thirty second clip preceding the Simon Dee show, the video starts at the right time, about a woman struggling with poverty in Islington in the 1960s.

She owns the whole house and presumably rents out the other floors; she's now living in the basement and when asked if she owns the whole house she says "to my sorrow".

Can't go wrong with bricks and mortar.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GBDamo said:

Inheritance tax should be 90% over a lowish threshold, say 100K.

Income tax should be 90% on earnings over a lowish threshold say 100K.

Accumulation of wealth should be discouraged with extream prejudice.

Capital has been hoovered up and replaced with debt.

 

Taxing wealth, now, will allow the government to go on an infrastructure binge and get the actual liquidity back into the pockets of the people.

I think.

Nah, they (the high earners) would all run for the hills. Swiss hills, Portuguese hills, and many others would offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

Inheritance tax should be 90% over a lowish threshold, say 100K.

Income tax should be 90% on earnings over a lowish threshold say 100K.

I’m pretty sure that is basically communism :o

Once the wealthy leave and the entrepreneurs can no longer be bothered to start/run companies then what?  State takes control of production? O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

I was thinking of residential property - IMO all landlords should be driven out of the game with taxation except for HMG who can manage and expand social housing.

As for intellectual property,  not sure how that could be taxed efficiently- isn't your missus Chinese, maybe she'd have an idea? :D

 

Council tax just gets passed onto the renters by the rentiers. Ownership of any other residential property apart from your own home is what has to be taxed. 

BZZZZT fail.

I am a successful industrialist from the 1920's. I have a property in a Trust.  My descendants live in it tax free. for ever.  They do not own it.  Your petty laws do not bother us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Nah, they (the high earners) would all run for the hills. Swiss hills, Portuguese hills, and many others would offer.

Yes, we saw it with the tax exiles of the 60s and 70s.

Quote

The top rate for British taxpayers in the mid-1960s reached 83 percent. The wealthiest among them paid a 15 percent super-tax on top of that, pushing taxes as high as 98 percent.

https://www.ac2news.com/2013/03/how-the-beatles-dealt-with-a-98-income-tax-thats-right-98/

Forget overtime you wouldn't bother working at all to lose 98% of it.

Or in Sweden in 1974: 102%

Quote

The marginal tax rate above 100%, dubbed the ‘Pomperipossa effect’, was due to tax legislation that required self-employed individuals to pay both regular income tax and employer’s fees.

https://www.alearned.com/tax/

 

These rates don't work; people earning enough to pay that tax can and do leave the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

I was thinking of residential property - IMO all landlords should be driven out of the game with taxation except for HMG who can manage and expand social housing.

As for intellectual property,  not sure how that could be taxed efficiently- isn't your missus Chinese, maybe she'd have an idea? :D

John Lennon should have had a verse in Imagine, where he imagines a world you didn’t have to still pay royalties for listening to it 50 fucking years after he went hippy heaven.

Obviously drugs and electronics that could be manufactured for fuck all but cost a fortune for an ever increasing length of time because of enforced monopolies are the more substantive end of the issue.

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Nah, they (the high earners) would all run for the hills. Swiss hills, Portuguese hills, and many others would offer.

Fine, you can't take assets, freeze accounts, devalue the currency.

Anything that makes the horded wealth worth less.

The west is atrophying due to lack of investment.

We need a Capitalist revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wherebee said:

BZZZZT fail.

I am a successful industrialist from the 1920's. I have a property in a Trust.  My descendants live in it tax free. for ever.  They do not own it.  Your petty laws do not bother us.

 

Easy enough to change residential property ownership laws to make this unprofitable, like the recent changes making it more difficult/expensive for offshore companies to own property. Obviously that would be tricky for any government to implement with the political system as it stands, there would be too much resistance from political donors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

Inheritance tax should be 90% over a lowish threshold, say 100K.

Income tax should be 90% on earnings over a lowish threshold say 100K.

Accumulation of wealth should be discouraged with extream prejudice.

Capital has been hoovered up and replaced with debt.

 

Taxing wealth, now, will allow the government to go on an infrastructure binge and get the actual liquidity back into the pockets of the people.

I think.

Wow.

You would still allow wealthy people to still grant 1% of their earnings to their children upon their death? Surely there should be some kind of top up tax to do away with this privilege?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I’m pretty sure that is basically communism :o

Once the wealthy leave and the entrepreneurs can no longer be bothered to start/run companies then what?  State takes control of production? O.o

A system that rewards risk and invetment and deters rent seeking and monopolies.

We could give it a catchy name, Capitalism maybe.

2 minutes ago, Stunley Andwin said:

Wow.

You would still allow wealthy people to still grant 1% of their earnings to their children upon their death? Surely there should be some kind of top up tax to do away with this privilege?

People need motivating, handouts don't motivate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it's houses and rent seeking that is teh main issue then the obvious answer is to have a stepped property tax payable by the owner.

 

Owner occupier tax - half a percent of value per year - so £2.5k for a £500k house - sounds fine.

Next property owned - and lowest value property excluding the first if more than one are owned - 1% of value.  £500k house £5k

Next property owned - 2% - £500k - £10k

Next property owned - 3% - £500k - £15k.

Next property owned - 4% - £500k - £20k.

Et cetera.

This serves to actively discourage any one individual owning lots of houses and they can't just dump the property tax onto the renter via higher rents because the renter will choose to rent from someone with one rented house trying to recover £5k rather than from someone with four trying to recover £20k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

As it's houses and rent seeking that is teh main issue then the obvious answer is to have a stepped property tax payable by the owner.

 

Owner occupier tax - half a percent of value per year - so £2.5k for a £500k house - sounds fine.

Next property owned - and lowest value property excluding the first if more than one are owned - 1% of value.  £500k house £5k

Next property owned - 2% - £500k - £10k

Next property owned - 3% - £500k - £15k.

Next property owned - 4% - £500k - £20k.

Et cetera.

This serves to actively discourage any one individual owning lots of houses and they can't just dump the property tax onto the renter via higher rents because the renter will choose to rent from someone with one rented house trying to recover £5k rather than from someone with four trying to recover £20k.

Yes house prices might come down but this does not mean everyone’s going to buy them .marrage is dying on its feet owning a house now would be a liability for many ie care fees etc .has more suck at the tax payers teat less will buy a house 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

Capatilism is basicly survival of the fittest even if it was gifted at the Norman conquest arguably has they won and subsequent generations have not lost it 

It may be on a family level but it isn't on an individual level.

Prince Charles was given the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Westminster the Grosvenor estates.

Inheritance tax did for most of the landed families of this country seeing them reduced to living in a leased wing of their stately home with the National Trust owning and maintaining the rest.

Had they been "the fittest" rather than merely taking over their father's cords and shotguns then they would have created enough weath to keep hold of those stately homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It may be on a family level but it isn't on an individual level.

Prince Charles was given the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Westminster the Grosvenor estates.

Inheritance tax did for most of the landed families of this country seeing them reduced to living in a leased wing of their stately home with the National Trust owning and maintaining the rest.

Had they been "the fittest" rather than merely taking over their father's cords and shotguns then they would have created enough weath to keep hold of those stately homes.

Even the royal family die out and we bring relatives in to take over .but true lots of landed gentry are liveing in a wing of a mansion so they don’t have huge amounts of money to tax anyway however it’s assumed they are rich . But they are still hanging on 

Edited by stokiescum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral arguments...ie the libertarian 'its peoples money...taxes are slavery' seem a bit redundant when every libertarian i've ever met...poke them hard enough and eventually you'll find something they personally enjoy and want other people to pay for. 

So then it just becomes a matter of practicality. A matter of where to draw the line. 

I dont think there is a 'correct' level of taxation, its more whatever society deems acceptable. 

Personally, i feel the UK has had a roughly stable level of taxation (35-40% of GDP) since 1945, and is perfectly fine. I'd tweak it a bit so those who can, pay a little more (namely i'd increase land & property taxes) & those who maybe cant pay a little less (i'd reduce VAT, fuel/excise duties etc), but for 90% of society, i wouldnt seek to change things much. 

1) Id get rid of the CGT allowance. Vast majority arent rich enough to use it. Its a tax break only the wealthiest can use. If not get rid of it, I'd remove primary residences from being excepted from CGT calcs, and thus effectively force people to use their CGT allowance on their home. I'd let it be carried over year to year, so if you've owned your house for 10 years, thats 10 years of combined CGT allowances (or 2xCGT allowances if joint ownership) Vast majority wouldnt pay CG on their primary residence, but the richest wouldnt be able to use it as uniquely tax efficient store of value . I do feel strongly about this one. I dont see why property should be treated as different to any other asset class, prime residence or not. If i have a mobile career, and put all my assets in stocks n shares instead of a single property, I pay CGT. 

2) Replace Council tax with perhaps a 0.5% of properly value tax (maybe not 0.5% exactly, I'd want it to be revenue neutral overall...clearly if you have a £20k terrace in Burnley, you'll pay a lot less than present, a £20ml penthouse in London, a lot more)

3. Increase tax/NI thresholds on earned income to £20k....they define 'poverty level' as <2/3rd Median income, and median FT income is around £30k, so seems they shouldnt tax below that level.

4) Upper Earnings Limit on NI abolished.

 

1) and 4) I think were both actually proposed by the libdems last year.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

Yes house prices might come down but this does not mean everyone’s going to buy them .marrage is dying on its feet owning a house now would be a liability for many ie care fees etc .has more suck at the tax payers teat less will buy a house 

Most working people IME want at some point to own their own home rather than rent it because, once the mortgage has been paid off, that then removes most of the necessity to keep working.

People tend to buy, or move up, in their forties because that then allows them to pay off their mortgage before they retire.

Purely anecdotal rather than trying to push It wider I know a couple through work - mid to late forties, two kids - who have no chance of ever buying because their money is going on rent (nice house but not excessive) and servicing their debts.  He's a bit of a waster but she has earned in the range £50k - £90k for the last ten years.  When someone with a family income of over three times the avearge wage in Cornwall cannot afford to buy a modest house then you have a problem that needs to be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

Most working people IME want at some point to own their own home rather than rent it because, once the mortgage has been paid off, that then removes most of the necessity to keep working.

People tend to buy, or move up, in their forties because that then allows them to pay off their mortgage before they retire.

Purely anecdotal rather than trying to push It wider I know a couple through work - mid to late forties, two kids - who have no chance of ever buying because their money is going on rent (nice house but not excessive) and servicing their debts.  He's a bit of a waster but she has earned in the range £50k - £90k for the last ten years.  When someone with a family income of over three times the avearge wage in Cornwall cannot afford to buy a modest house then you have a problem that needs to be fixed.

I agree house prices are insane but she could have fucked him off has a waster .some of her problems are poor judgment and debt were they forced into debt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.