Billionaires pay "0% - 0.5% tax" report finds - Suggests 2% minimum tax.

hurfdurf said:
Big financial risk?
Click to expand...

What happened to people that had shares in companies like Theranos? Let alone shares in most companies when there's a stock market 'crash'.

What happens to a lot of the money people may have used to found the 20% of small businesses that fail in the 1st year and the 60% that fold in three in the UK?
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
What happened to people that had shares in companies like Theranos? Let alone shares in most companies when there's a stock market 'crash'.

What happens to a lot of the money people may have used to found the 20% of small businesses that fail in the 1st year and the 60% that fold in three in the UK?
Click to expand...

You are right in some situations, but you can't ignore that these billionaires will move their residency to a place that has next to zero tax to pay, simply to avoid payment tax.
 
Caracus2k said:
What happened to people that had shares in companies like Theranos? Let alone shares in most companies when there's a stock market 'crash'.

What happens to a lot of the money people may have used to found the 20% of small businesses that fail in the 1st year and the 60% that fold in three in the UK?
Click to expand...

What happens to companies when they have no society to exist in?
 
Richie said:
I worked it out.

CGT on £1M Profit is £195,030 or 19.5%
Tax Paid on £30K salary is circa 22%
Tax Paid on £60K salary is circa 30%

Seem fair?
Click to expand...
If you could lose all your salary due to under performance of the business due to some macro economic scenario that was nothing to do with you then sure let’s align the taxes. I think the only people that think there is a need to bring CGT into alignment with income do not understanding risking their own money with investing. You can absolutely lose everything and if you are leveraged you lose more than you put in. There has to be a balance of risk vs reward here. I would go further to say they we will become poorer as a nation and as individuals if we did disincentivise investing.

Also you need to check your tax vs salary examples. On £30k your take home is 81% so 19% (£5,575) tax and on £60k it is 73% so 27% (£16,147) tax.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
Do investors have to give back all the profit they have already taken out if their shares collapse?
Click to expand...
Not to mention those that asset strip a perfectly healthy and financially viable company.

Or buying something and loading it with debt to pay for the purchase, like the Glaziers did with Man Utd
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
Do investors have to give back all the profit they have already taken out if their shares collapse?
Click to expand...
That’s not how this works. Once your money is in it is at risk and can walk away with nothing. When you take your money out and solidify the gains then you pay the tax. Imagine being in a job and you can’t take your money out until you quit and if you lose it before you do then you get nothing. The risk of a job is not even in the same league as the risk of investing.
 
Last edited:
413x said:
Woah. Scotlands tax rate is that much higher?
Click to expand...

Yeah....full table here:

Over £12,571 to £14,732 - Starter rate 19%
Over £14,733 to £25,688 - Scottish basic rate 20%
Over £25,689 to £43,662 - Intermediate rate 21%
Over £43,663 to £125,140 - Higher rate 42%
Above £125,140 - Top rate 47%
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
Yeah....full table here:

Over £12,571 to £14,732 - Starter rate 19%
Over £14,733 to £25,688 - Scottish basic rate 20%
Over £25,689 to £43,662 - Intermediate rate 21%
Over £43,663 to £125,140 - Higher rate 42%
Above £125,140 - Top rate 47%
Click to expand...
Pay 42pc anything over 43.6k?
That is a lot lot more than E&W if it's taking into account the same. Tax free allowance as we have here that ours us at 40pc at 50k.

Just looked.
I'd be 1700 a year worse off in Scotland! Damn. That's a lot!
 
Last edited:
I don't get the "they risk their money that's why they shouldn't be equally taxed" argument.

What about the workers who risk their lives? Do they get tax breaks too?

It's so silly and irrelevant.

The only argument that can be made is a weak one, but it's that taxing those that have taken risks may stop them taking risks, and then in this small world, companies in other countries with better tax incentives could get ahead and beat ours.

But that's an argument for fair tax world wide, not, reduced tax on risk takers.
 
unwashed potato! said:
I don't get the "they risk their money that's why they shouldn't be equally taxed" argument.

What about the workers who risk their lives? Do they get tax breaks too?

It's so silly and irrelevant.

The only argument that can be made is a weak one, but it's that taxing those that have taken risks may stop them taking risks, and then in this small world, companies in other countries with better tax incentives could get ahead and beat ours.

But that's an argument for fair tax world wide, not, reduced tax on risk takers.
Click to expand...
It’s a risk on your money. We actually need people to take these risks for business to function so killing that off will make us worse off. If people could put their money in with the guarantee of not losing any of it then I’m sure they would accept paying higher rates on the profit.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
Yeah....full table here:

Over £12,571 to £14,732 - Starter rate 19%
Over £14,733 to £25,688 - Scottish basic rate 20%
Over £25,689 to £43,662 - Intermediate rate 21%
Over £43,663 to £125,140 - Higher rate 42%
Above £125,140 - Top rate 47%
Click to expand...
Current average tax rate before stuff like VAT is ~25% and yet everyone always moans about the highest rate as if they're taxed on that full amount.
 
Last edited:
delta0 said:
It’s a risk on your money. We actually need people to take these risks for business to function so killing that off will make us worse off. If people could put their money in with the guarantee of not losing any of it then I’m sure they would accept paying higher rates on the profit.
Click to expand...
we agree that risks should come with rewards. You think the reward should be obscene billions wealth, AND very low tax? And if not both, this may stop billionaires looks to create more billions?

Surely a better incentive could be grants to help those businesses that take risks, paid for by the tax from already successful billionaires? Or are those companies not worth putting grants into? You see the issue here? Arguing that tax should be low else risk takers may not take risks and those job cresting companies don't get formed, is the ignoring all the other opportunities the tax could have been used to fund new companies that would also create jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom