Coronavirus (OLD)

[RichardCoulter]

Everybody pays tax, even children who spend their pocket money.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Everybody pays tax, even children who spend their pocket money.

Unless they buy themselves socks.....or a turnip.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

My solution is that the richest generation ever starts paying, instead of burdening the next generation. Time to get your wallet out, mind the moths....

Does that include you, Mr K? And if so, could you give me your credit card details, because you sound such a sympathetic (albeit naive) person!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Does that include you, Mr K? And if so, could you give me your credit card details, because you sound such a sympathetic (albeit naive) person!

He wants to help the country, not you...

He has said in the past he is willing to pay more tax (as am I) - TANSTAAFL

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He wants to help the country, not you...

He has said in the past he is willing to pay more tax (as am I) - TANSTAAFL

This goes beyond milking the PAYE "cash cow". The system needs restructuring so that a Wealth tax replaces Income Tax. At that point, the perception of the tax burden and the reality of it will coalesce.

If you just attack the middle income sector without address the cash economy (at the low end) and the tax avoidence at the high end, you just add to the resentment. The burden needs to be shared and seen to be shared.

Addressing Mr K's point, a big obstacle is the power of the Boomer generation holds over this and previous Governments. Those who have more than most are unwilling to help those that have less - the fundamental flaw in the free market dogma. They may pretend that want to help but when it comes down to a change that impacts them directly there is always a problem.

The "price" of Covid will be high, very high .. in all sorts of ways and it will be a test of the ability of those that have more than most to justify their inability to contribute proportionally.

[Sephiroth]

You can't just turn on its head the fruits of hard work put in by the so-called "Boomer generation" (an insulting term in its own right).

The post-war generation rebuilt the UK and they mainly sit firmly in the higher end of the middle-income sector. This is not surprising since they've put the time in, got promoted etc, and many (depending on where you count from) are pensioners.

To resent this generation, which is a sentiment apparent in ianch99's post even if denied, is a kick in the teeth for hard working people who now happen to own their own homes and should not be subject to any form of regressive wealth tax.

[nomadking]

Wealth tax experiment in France

The wealth tax might have generated social solidarity, but as a practical matter it was a disappointment. The revenue it raised was rather paltry; only a few billion euros at its peak, or about 1% of France’s total revenue from all taxes. At least 10,000 wealthy people left the country to avoid paying the tax; most moved to neighboring Belgium, which has a large French-speaking population. When these individuals left, France lost not only their wealth tax revenue but their income taxes and other taxes as well. French economist Eric Pichet estimates that this ended up costing the French government almost twice as much revenue as the total yielded by the wealth tax. When President Emmanuel Macron ended the wealth tax in 2017, it was viewed mostly as a symbolic move.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wealth tax experiment in France

Well nomadking, if not taxes, maybe we should axe all the benefits that half the forum seem to be claiming instead? (with some being hypocritical about anyone else that dares to claim....)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Well nomadking, if not taxes, maybe we should axe all the benefits that half the forum seem to be claiming instead? (with some being hypocritical about anyone else that dares to claim....)

... in other words, you have no valid policy thinking to offer.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... in other words, you have no valid policy thinking to offer.

I already offered one old chap.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

I already offered one old chap.

Well nomadking, if not taxes, maybe we should axe all the benefits that half the forum seem to be claiming instead? (with some being hypocritical about anyone else that dares to claim....)

But then you switched tack.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But then you switched tack.

No, not really. Tax rises on those that can afford them are the fairest option. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of some on benefits.

Then there's those that want spending cuts so they can be richer... The Tory policy has backfired with public services woefully under prepared, and under funded for the current crisis.

Lets not wander off topic here.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

No, not really. Tax rises on those that can afford them are the fairest option. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of some on benefits.

Then there's those that want spending cuts so they can be richer... The Tory policy has backfired with public services woefully under prepared, and under funded for the current crisis.

The IFS doesn't agree with you. The damaging effects of CV will not be mitigated even to the merest extent by taxing the rich.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn84.pdf

The Treasury estimates that the 45% tax rate will affect 350,000 people, and raise £1.6 billion in a full year after accounting for the impact on tax revenues of any changes in behaviour caused by the tax change (we refer to this as the ‘behavioural response’ to the tax change). This behavioural response would arise in the following way: increasing the marginal rate of income tax at the top of the income distribution to 45% makes earning slightly more a little less attractive to those already earning more than £150,000, and reduces the cost to them of earning slightly less. We would therefore expect these individuals to respond to this change by reducing their taxable income. They could do this by increasing their contributions to a private pension, working less hard or making more effort to avoid or evade tax. These changes might also discourage high-income individuals from coming to the UK, and encourage those already in the UK to emigrate or retire earlier.

All of these responses would tend to reduce the amount of revenue raised by this reform, and in theory could even mean that this tax rise costs money. In general, the size of these revenue effects will depend on:

• how high-income individuals respond to changes in their marginal tax rate and their total tax bill; this will affect what they pay not just in income tax but in other taxes too;

• the number of people on different incomes above £150,000 (which requires us to estimate what the distribution of these high incomes will look like in 2011–12 from what we know about the distribution of those incomes today).

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You can't just turn on its head the fruits of hard work put in by the so-called "Boomer generation" (an insulting term in its own right).

The post-war generation rebuilt the UK and they mainly sit firmly in the higher end of the middle-income sector. This is not surprising since they've put the time in, got promoted etc, and many (depending on where you count from) are pensioners.

To resent this generation, which is a sentiment apparent in ianch99's post even if denied, is a kick in the teeth for hard working people who now happen to own their own homes and should not be subject to any form of regressive wealth tax.

There is no need for the snide remarks. My point was a reasonable one. As Paul says, it is not the place to explore this here but just to say that I am also a "Boomer"