Yes, because successive governments have a solid track record for spending. Remember MP's expenses?
Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
Yes, because successive governments have a solid track record for spending. Remember MP's expenses?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
There's a difference between income and wealth. I'm in the top 5% of PAYE earners in the country but am certainly not wealthy. However, I have friends who own land or have successful companies who live much grander lifestyles than I do but pay MUCH less tax.
Taxing land is the most reliable ways of generating tax, as it can't be hidden or avoided. Unfortunately the Tories wont do this as it's not in their own economic interests, so it's back to taxing the people who HAVE to WORK via PAYE and NI contributions.
Taxing land is the most reliable ways of generating tax, as it can't be hidden or avoided. Unfortunately the Tories wont do this as it's not in their own economic interests, so it's back to taxing the people who HAVE to WORK via PAYE and NI contributions.
of course he will.....
and labour did it as soon as they got into power? or at anytime in the 16 years of power? its stupid suggestion, it would kill off what is left of our farming industry.
The rational approach would be to compare the benefits of each opposing system off a number of social metrics.
Crime, social cohesion, economic stability, social stability, health & a number of quality of life measures.
On the subject of inheritance, I have a few key problems with the concept,
Firstly it enables unscrupulous individuals in as position to privilege to shield future generations from the fallout of short-term economic policy/global decisions. In a system without inheritance it forces the population to create a society in which ALL of the next generation are catered for (as a by-product so are their children).
Secondly, the true social leeches are those who contribute nothing - but expend huge amounts of resources. Being the son of a millionaire you can literally use hundreds of times the amount of resources without contributing anything to society.
Finally, inheritance undermines the concept of "equality of opportunity", something most capitalists claim to support (when in reality they simply wish to maintain existing privilege) - if you can buy better life prospects due to being born into wealth it's in direct contrast to true meritocratic values (which again, most capitalists claim to support - but in reality don't).
The public seems blissfully ignorant of the costs associated with having such an imbalance in wealth - not just for ethical reasons but the damage it causes to employment & demand (which in turn damages the economy) - believe it or not economy's don't function very well when all the wealth is in the hands of a few.
I actually agree in part, taxing income is pretty regressive to begin with - as the differences in income between the social groups are far less prevalent than differences in total wealth.
Income is a pretty backwards thing to tax, more-so income tax on people who earn hardly enough to survive - personally I'd scrap income tax for anybody earning below what's considered a "living wage" (I'd say less than £25k, pending on region of course) off the top of my head, but I'd need to do further study to find a viable figure.
The first thing we should do is end the insane stupidity of taxing people who we also give benefits (pointless administration costs alert).
Last edited:
I don't think its fair to tax assets like that, obviously we have some minor variation in council tax payments but not a huge amount and that should be the extent of it - the transfer of assets by either selling them or passing on via inheritance should be where the tax system potentially kicks in - not merely possessing them on an ongoing basis - especially when the income used to buy the asset and the purchase of the asset itself were both subject to tax already.
Someone living in say a house with a bit of land might well be a pensioner on low income etc... they could be wealthy on paper as a result of that asset they live in but I really don't think its appropriate to tax it on an ongoing basis rather the govt can collect their rather large chunk of it when that person dies. It isn't the pensioners fault that the house has risen in value significantly since they purchased it. Its the trust funds set up explicitly to avoid inheritance tax that perhaps are problematic - perpetually keeping pockets of wealth in the hands of successive generations isn't good if we want to attempt to be more meritocratic.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
But I'm taxed on the things I buy via VAT with income that is already taxed via PAYE and NI. So if I buy something in the shops worth £100, I need to earn £141 to pay for it (40% income tax + 1% NI) plus 20% VAT. So for me to buy that £100 item, the government gets £61 in tax. Whereas a landowner living in Downton Abbey, who doesn't need to work as they inherited all their wealth, gets to put his income into trusts and other tax-dodging vehicles and has a smaller tax bill than myself.
Indeed, I find it amazing how people born into such wealth & opulence can have the nerve to talk about a culture of something for nothing.
Call me a lefty scumbag but I don't think who a persons mommy & daddy are should hugely impact on an individuals chance to succeed in life.
I thought capitalist ideology was about letting the 'best rise to the top'.., it seems having a true even playing field to allow this is the last thing many actually want - ergo the hilarious 'protectionist capitalists' (the opposite & equally undesirable side of the 'champaign socialists')
Last edited:
May I ask for you to expand on the social leeches part? I don't understand how the son of a millionaire can use orders of magnitude more resources than, for example me, without contributing anything. I can't really argue or agree with the point as it appears very nonspecific.
I can see what you mean about inheritance potentially undermining equality of opportunity, but I'm not convinced that I really agree with it in practice. If people inherit enough wealth that there is no need for them to succeed in life, then they're already out of the equation. I'm not competing for jobs with the sons and daughters of tycoons who are loaded, I'm competing with people like me who have worked for years to put themselves in a position that gives them a chance.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 830
- Location
- Yorkshire
Quite shocking what the reality is after watching that video. I still believe that Britain offers a lot in terms of education, sports & leisure for free but most people in the poor category in particular those whose parents are long term on the dole will never get far because they won't get the proper guidance from the parents and actually use the free resources this country offers. My dad came to this country with £11 in his pocket and has done quite well and bought two new builds for me and my brother half payed in cash and with us two paying the mortgage since we we both 18. I would go as far as saying we needed this because we'd be screwed as the banks aren't lending as much now.
If we can't beat the rich we'd best join em!
If we can't beat the rich we'd best join em!
if you gave your £140 item to someone else should they pay IHT on that transfer?
A social leech is somebody who contributes nothing to society, you could classify many people into this group - but the key difference being the amount of total resources/labour the individual consumes in each opposing group.
Those who reap huge benefits of modern society without activity contributing anything (without having the justification of being willing but unable, such as those out of work or disabled) simply by being born in a certain family or dynasty.
I'm talking broadly across the system, if people as a whole are able to protect future generations from the fallout of short-term decisions (at the expense of wider society) it discourages economic & social changes being put into place which benefit the society writ large & favours short term gain.
Last edited:
Yeah I'm criticising the trusts and inherited wealth which has avoided taxation... I'm opposing taxing assets on an ongoing basis. i.e. someone buys a house and it happens to rise in value - for example Islington in London used to be a complete dump a few decades ago - over the past few years its seen huge rises - someone buying a terrace house there in the 80s now has a property worth over a million - it doesn't necessarily mean they can afford to pay an ongoing mansion tax on it.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
But then they still have a massive untaxed asset, regardless of who's fault this is. I had my house surveyed as we're moving soon, the surveyor said he'd been to a house in north Oxford which the owners bought in the 1950's for £2,000 which he'd just valued at £2,600,000. If they had to sell their house and buy a nice bungalow somewhere worth £600,000 to avoid the mansion tax and STILL have £2,000,000 + pensions to live on, I struggle to sympathise.
yes but it will drive up the values of any property that falls below any set threshold and down any value that is above it. take into account the cost of moving and it starts to look a little less black and white as you describe above.
also if your property is close to the margin of whatever level they deem fair then how is that equitable?
Its hardly untaxed if the income used to pay for it was taxed and the purchase itself was taxed (stamp duty)... I really don't see the logic in taxing it on an ongoing basis? The obvious thing to do with assets is to tax the transfer of ownership.
But it logically follows that the sect of wealth you are referring to are more likely to use fewer public services. Since when did the mega-rich (and let's face it, if we're talking 'dynasties' here, we're not talking upper Middle England) go to state schools or wait for NHS beds?
This all sounds very theoretical to me. Inheritance is not at the expense of wider society as it already has been taxed in some way, shape or form (usually multiple times). Maybe I'm being thick here, which is quite possible, but I don't understand what kind of short-termism you're referring to as these kinds of societal directions and decisions are not made by individuals, they're made by policy-makers; at least at the system-wide level that you initially refer to.