Wealth tax

[SydneyRover]

Why should income eared from the sale of an asset be taxed at a different rate from salary?

Please explain?

[danumdon]

Why should income eared from the sale of an asset be taxed at a different rate from salary?

Please explain?

What's the price of sheep and bushmeat in Australia got to do with Us?

[SydneyRover]

showing ignorance again dd

[danumdon]

I knew that one would tickle your goatee.

I'd tell you but you'd only be disappointed again.

[SydneyRover]

tell me why you can't answer the simple question dd, you appear to know who's hands the the countries wealth should be in.

[normal rules]

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption

[danumdon]

Entirey agree.

How many times would you like the state to rinse the cash in our pocket SR.

Ho i forgot you don't deal in sterling over there, how many times do you go through one sheep?

You don't need to tell me, i wont be disappointed.

[BobG]

Lol!

[SydneyRover]

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption

why does inflation need to be taken into account, the asset value rises with inflation, no?

[albie]

Some wealthy people live off the proceeds of that wealth, rather than earned income from regular employment.

Sydney is correct on this.....there is no valid economic reason, nor ethical position, to justify the difference.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption

What does that mean?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption

What does that mean?

I suspect his point is it's not simple. Should you tax someone for house growth over 30 years and not take in to account inflation? Not sure that's fair.

The theory of a wealth tax is complicated but does have some merit.

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption

why does inflation need to be taken into account, the asset value rises with inflation, no?

No, quite differently actually and if you implement a wealth tax how do you value said assets etc? Loss carry backs, investment deductions, subjectivity of valuation etc.  Absolute minefield and would largely just make a lot of people even more rich from the valuations you'd have to do etc.

[SydneyRover]

Just increase to the tax on what it is now that would be a good start and get rid of trusts.

If people have used an accountant and their taxes are deemed to have been avoided then the accountants should lose their licence to operate in the UK for say 5-10 years. That could bring a bit more in. If deemed careless then maybe a shorter ban of say 3-6 years.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

[SydneyRover]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

[Colemans Left Hook]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

Sids has just scored 12 out of 10 in the embarrassment post stakes

His posts remind me of an old film I watched last night "the WW11 film "The wooden horse"

FFS Sid stop digging a hole into a topic you know nothing about 

if you must dig a hole go opal mining   -

i've just checked where the nearest place to you to do your digging  is----   and it is

Lightning Ridge NSW

it needs you (like a hole in the head)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Ridge,_New_South_Wales

[danumdon]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

So you've finally let it out of the bag, "It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has"

So you basically want to tax, not rich millionaire and billionaires, people with money coming out of their ears but you want to tax the average man in the street who just happens to have a little extra than the average citizen has, so in effect nearly half the population require to tip up to your socialist overlords to distribute to the other half

Lets just hope your grey leader doesn't have the same thoughts as you do, unless he wants to throw the next election away.

I'd say most on the forum would disagree with it if they answered honestly.

You don't want a wealth tax, you want a socialist diktat imposing on anyone who dares to have the gumption to strive in life better than your "we all have to be equal but i'll became equal by spending someone else's money rabble"

[normal rules]

In the 1980s the Conservative Government’s concern was that savers and investors were being taxed on paper gains, arising from severe price inflation over the previous decade. Successive Conservative Chancellors introduced an allowance to take account of inflation, ‘rebased’ assets so that only gains made since 1982 would be taxed, and aligned the rates of tax with the rates of income tax.  In the late 1990s the Labour Government’s priorities were to use CGT to encourage business growth, and in a time of low inflation, it replaced indexation allowance with a relief which tapered chargeable gains by reference to the length of time assets were held.  The taper was more generous for business assets.
By 2007 it was apparent that this relief for business assets was being exploited by executives in private equity funds – some of the most highly-paid individuals in the country – to pay CGT on their gains at 10%, rather than income tax at 40%. In October that year the then Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling, proposed removing this incentive by abolishing taper relief, and setting a single rate of tax at 18%.  Concerns that this would penalise the owners of small business lead to the Government introducing a new ‘Entrepreneurs Relief’ alongside these changes from April 2008.  In its 2009 Budget the Labour Government confirmed that from April 2010 a new 50% higher rate of income tax would apply on incomes over £150,000.  In turn this led to concerns that the structure of CGT might provide too great an incentive for the very wealthy to avoid tax.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don't suppose anyone giving their strident opinions in here has read Thomas Piketty?

[ravenrover]

Is that one of Dickens'? :-]]

[Colemans Left Hook]

can i just bring this to your attention  as an example of things people have been "suckered" to invest in -- to avoid CGT

some of you might already know about the "whisky" phenomena ( i think classic cars comes under the exempt CGT)

Scotch Whisky Cask Investments - Exempt from Capital Gains Tax
Ad·https://www.whiskyinvestor.club/cask/investments
As a 'wasting asset', the profits are exempt from Capital Gains Tax. As whisky matures in cask, the value increases year-on-year. See Benefits. Download Free Guide. Benefits: No Capital Gains Tax On Profits, Multiple Exit Strategies.

this is a suckers fantasy "camoflauged pyramid selling market" a bit like bitcoin (only bitcoin is subject to capital gains tax)

[danumdon]

I don't suppose anyone giving their strident opinions in here has read Thomas Piketty?

Just had a quick look, seems he was the brains behind the Labour party wanting to introduce higher rates of tax for earnings over one million (fair enough)and wanted to see the introduction of a universal basic income that some argued was not universal, so in effect capped. and eventually drifted away from Labour due to their ineptness during the Brexit referendum in being unable to progress any of these initiatives to fruition.

I agree with taxing earnings over one million, i agree with a universal basic income. What i don't agree with is the eventual implementation of policies that affect working people who just happen to earn "above average".

Its always been this policy of hitting the average man in the street that these initiatives eventually affect the most instead of the targeted populace.

[drfchound]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

Not all assets appreciate in value Syd.  Some investments don’t work out and people make a loss.  I suppose you would rule out the average bloke claiming capital gains losses on their tax return.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

Very different things.  CGT applies regardless of how wealthy you are. Make a decent investment and sell it and you'll pay the tax but you could have a 300k mortgage. You're not wealthy but still taxed.  It needs an overhaul and possibly should be bulked in with earnings, but that makes PAYE very difficult to administer and becomes extremely costly (let's be frank HMRC are very poor at running it as it is).

A proper wealth tax to me makes some sense, not many countries have it and I'd be inclined to offer breaks for investment in UK businesses too.

[selby]

  Syd, can you find an argument against the statement " A good socialist is a good socialist until someone elses money runs out".
  I must admit I think your a good socialist.
 

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don't suppose anyone giving their strident opinions in here has read Thomas Piketty?

Just had a quick look, seems he was the brains behind the Labour party wanting to introduce higher rates of tax for earnings over one million (fair enough)and wanted to see the introduction of a universal basic income that some argued was not universal, so in effect capped. and eventually drifted away from Labour due to their ineptness during the Brexit referendum in being unable to progress any of these initiatives to fruition.

I agree with taxing earnings over one million, i agree with a universal basic income. What i don't agree with is the eventual implementation of policies that affect working people who just happen to earn "above average".

Its always been this policy of hitting the average man in the street that these initiatives eventually affect the most instead of the targeted populace.

The point about Piketty is that he's the world authority on the effect of concentration of wealth. His work has clearly demonstrated that, when wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a very few, as it is now in the UK and USA, that concentration stays in those families. Social mobility dries up. The rich remain rich, regardless of future performance, and the poor stay poor, regardless of how some people think all you have to do is roll up your sleeves and work harder.

Piketty's work sets out the argument for why confiscating a proportion of the wealth of the very richest in society will actually benefit society as a whole, by making it more economically vibrant, and rewarding the next generation of hard workers.


What his work clearly demonstrates is that you cannot say you are in favour of social mobility, while at the same time allowing the very richest to pile up wealth that isn't taxed.

[drfchound]

I don't suppose anyone giving their strident opinions in here has read Thomas Piketty?

Just had a quick look, seems he was the brains behind the Labour party wanting to introduce higher rates of tax for earnings over one million (fair enough)and wanted to see the introduction of a universal basic income that some argued was not universal, so in effect capped. and eventually drifted away from Labour due to their ineptness during the Brexit referendum in being unable to progress any of these initiatives to fruition.

I agree with taxing earnings over one million, i agree with a universal basic income. What i don't agree with is the eventual implementation of policies that affect working people who just happen to earn "above average".

Its always been this policy of hitting the average man in the street that these initiatives eventually affect the most instead of the targeted populace.

The point about Piketty is that he's the world authority on the effect of concentration of wealth. His work has clearly demonstrated that, when wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a very few, as it is now in the UK and USA, that concentration stays in those families. Social mobility dries up. The rich remain rich, regardless of future performance, and the poor stay poor, regardless of how some people think all you have to do is roll up your sleeves and work harder.

Piketty's work sets out the argument for why confiscating a proportion of the wealth of the very richest in society will actually benefit society as a whole, by making it more economically vibrant, and rewarding the next generation of hard workers.


What his work clearly demonstrates is that you cannot say you are in favour of social mobility, while at the same time allowing the very richest to pile up wealth that isn't taxed.

Edit:  “isn’t taxed enough”.

[SydneyRover]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

Very different things. CGT applies regardless of how wealthy you are. Make a decent investment and sell it and you'll pay the tax but you could have a 300k mortgage. You're not wealthy but still taxed.  It needs an overhaul and possibly should be bulked in with earnings, but that makes PAYE very difficult to administer and becomes extremely costly (let's be frank HMRC are very poor at running it as it is).

A proper wealth tax to me makes some sense, not many countries have it and I'd be inclined to offer breaks for investment in UK businesses too.

Really pud? then would you have a little (or big) bet with me that CGT that more of those above the average wage pay it than those below?

It's a similar situation with trusts how many in the lower socio economic bracket would have a trust?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

Very different things. CGT applies regardless of how wealthy you are. Make a decent investment and sell it and you'll pay the tax but you could have a 300k mortgage. You're not wealthy but still taxed.  It needs an overhaul and possibly should be bulked in with earnings, but that makes PAYE very difficult to administer and becomes extremely costly (let's be frank HMRC are very poor at running it as it is).

A proper wealth tax to me makes some sense, not many countries have it and I'd be inclined to offer breaks for investment in UK businesses too.

Really pud? then would you have a little (or big) bet with me that CGT that more of those above the average wage pay it than those below?

It's a similar situation with trusts how many in the lower socio economic bracket would have a trust?

That much is obvious but it's also the case that in the near future someone with £0 income could make a say £6k gain and pay the same tax on a £6k gain as someone who earnt much more. That's pretty daft in my view.

[SydneyRover]

You are aware tax avoidance is a legal right in this country and has been for years?

What tax exactly are you increasing? We don't have wealth taxes in this country, perhaps you're confused with CGT?

CGT is what I was talking about above. It's a wealth tax if if taxes those with assets above and over what the average citizen has.

What about the bit where enablers are penalised also?

Very different things. CGT applies regardless of how wealthy you are. Make a decent investment and sell it and you'll pay the tax but you could have a 300k mortgage. You're not wealthy but still taxed.  It needs an overhaul and possibly should be bulked in with earnings, but that makes PAYE very difficult to administer and becomes extremely costly (let's be frank HMRC are very poor at running it as it is).

A proper wealth tax to me makes some sense, not many countries have it and I'd be inclined to offer breaks for investment in UK businesses too.

Really pud? then would you have a little (or big) bet with me that CGT that more of those above the average wage pay it than those below?

It's a similar situation with trusts how many in the lower socio economic bracket would have a trust?

That much is obvious but it's also the case that in the near future someone with £0 income could make a say £6k gain and pay the same tax on a £6k gain as someone who earnt much more. That's pretty daft in my view.

And what is plainly obvious is that the system requires change, the party you vote for couldn't sell cold beer on a hot day and that is the reason why people are demanding change. If the tories had given cost of living rises throughout their tenure + a bit more then there would be those going backwards the gap wouldn't be so big. If they had manged the economy instead of playing ideology politics in 2010 the money would be there for services. Whether they would have spent it there is another matter.

Every bit of credible information available tells everyone that those at the top are getting wealthier at the expense of the rest.

Prove me wrong pud.