Diane Abbott in fine form this morning...

[Albumen]

Oh well she got there in the end.
At least she's actually trying to answer the questions rather than just saying Strong and Stable every 10 seconds, which in my mind is worse.

 

[carlzeiss]

Oh well she got there in the end.
At least she's actually trying to answer the questions rather than just saying Strong and Stable every 10 seconds, which in my mind is worse.

Also well done to her for not mentioning racism once .

 

[Albumen]

Also well done to her for not mentioning racism once .

She's racist?

 

[wellquickwoody]

I have an idea, which you might not have thought of: the rich.

Care to define rich in your view?

 

[crookie]

Personally, I would massively crank up inheritance tax - it is the one tax that seems genuinely fair to me. What's more, you can make a case that income tax, VAT, corp tax could all negatively impact the economy. I fail to see how cranking up inheritance tax would do that. It would just distribute a dead person's income more effectively.

I agree, tax wealth more heavily, and income less so. Plenty of the rich hoard their money so it does nothing to benefit the real economy, the poorest can't afford to save, spend all their income which generates VAT income and jobs.

And yes, crank up inheritance tax. The person whose money it is isn't affected, they've passed away. The only people who lose out a bit are those seeking to inherit who have likely done nothing to aid the creation of the wealth. Certainly at a higher level, say over £1million, ramp it up to say 75%. Encourage the wealthy to spend, not hoard their wealth

 

[Rod Marsh]

I agree, tax wealth more heavily, and income less so. Plenty of the rich hoard their money so it does nothing to benefit the real economy, the poorest can't afford to save, spend all their income which generates VAT income and jobs.

And yes, crank up inheritance tax. The person whose money it is isn't affected, they've passed away. The only people who lose out a bit are those seeking to inherit who have likely done nothing to aid the creation of the wealth. Certainly at a higher level, say over £1million, ramp it up to say 75%. Encourage the wealthy to spend, not hoard their wealth

Great idea. Wealthy people are the most mobile in the world. A 75% inheritance tax would just be telling them to leave to country. Jobs, tax revenue would all be affected. I'm not sure people hoard their wealth either, where do you get that information from? I'd rather individuals spend the money on goods and services than the government.

 

[beorhthelm]

the only fair way to change inheritance tax is to remove it completely and treat and inheritance as income to the recipients. problem of course is that anyone with any tangible assets, property, land, shares etc would have to sell it all and distribute the cash to the beneficiaries. farms would be broken up, companies dissolved in the process. as it stands, with a modest threshold and high marginal rate, it is ideologically flawed, and anyone with substantial assets puts them in trust so they are not part of the persons estate on death.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'd like to know more about it please. A global tax on capital sounds good, but presumably there will always be countries that can do better by not agreeing to it, so the wealthy will go there. It sounds like a long term dream, it's certainly not going to pay for health and education in the next 5 years (or 20).

It's an idea culled from Piketty, which is as good a book to go for contemporary economic analysis as you'll find (although he's for international coordination, i.e. against Brexit; Mark Blyth is worth reading if you want a pro-Brexit/anti-EU/euro analysis).
Rather than raising (especially income) taxes, more immediate monies should come through closing down loopholes so as to increase the tax take (which is what McDonnell was looking into, although I doubt he's developed a policy framework to put into their manifesto), while there's plenty that can come from the insane property inflation that's occurred over the past few decades.

 

[Triggaaar]

I've heard the "taxed twice" argument before, but I don't see how it is any different from money you've paid income tax on, which is then taxed again whenever you buy luxury goods, in the form of VAT.

Well let's call it "taxed thrice" then. Part of the reason people keep working is that they want to help provide for their family. Tax them too much and they'll stop working. Or they'll go to greater lengths to find a way around the tax.

Couldn't you just cap the tax-free ceiling on trusts, or put conditions on it in order to make trusts less attractive to those looking to avoid inheritance tax?

Trust and the like make me sick. The London property billionaires don't pay inheritance tax, but the rest of us do. > 90% of the public would support preventing the loopholes that the very rich use.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Personally, I would massively crank up inheritance tax - it is the one tax that seems genuinely fair to me. What's more, you can make a case that income tax, VAT, corp tax could all negatively impact the economy. I fail to see how cranking up inheritance tax would do that. It would just distribute a dead person's income more effectively.

A far tax to those who spent their life on the dole, dipping into the social handouts at will, and never trying to gain or make anything of themselves maybe.

Of course to those who work hard and buy their own houses, and have saving for a rainy, (rather than buy iphones, PS4's, fags, and beer whilst living in a shithole of a rented hovel paid for by the tax payer), those who pay high taxes already, might disagree that taxing the money again when they pass onto to their children, is probably one of the most unfair most evil taxes there is.

Why the **** should a dead persons money, be distributed to anyone other than the people they choose it to be distributed too, ie their family in most cases.

What's next. Lets just double VAT for anyone over retirement age, with more than £350000 in assets. Why wait for them to die? lets just kill them off and take all their money and distribute it among those who think works a dirty word for rich people!

The left do come up with some shit, but this really is up there with the maddest of it.

Probably best way to raise taxes, is to make the multi-nationals, Starbucks, Amazon, Ebay, Google, Facebook and all, pay their fair taxes and not let them hide their UK profits in Ireland or Luxembourg. You can just keep taxing the rich, otherwise they will join the likes of the multi-nationals and pay taxes abroad. THen what are you going to do?

Typical left. GRAB GRAB GRAB. Short term grabbing, no long term thinking.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's an idea culled from Piketty, which is as good a book

But like I say, that's not something we can do to bring in money now to pay for health and education. So how would you pay for it all now?

Rather than raising (especially income) taxes, more immediate monies should come through closing down loopholes so as to increase the tax take

As above, i certainly agree with your principle there, as do most voters, but it's clearly easier said than done. No government has ever managed it, and no party has a plan on how to do it.

 

[Rod Marsh]

Well let's call it "taxed thrice" then. Part of the reason people keep working is that they want to help provide for their family. Tax them too much and they'll stop working. Or they'll go to greater lengths to find a way around the tax.

Trust and the like make me sick. The London property billionaires don't pay inheritance tax, but the rest of us do. > 90% of the public would support preventing the loopholes that the very rich use.

So you'd be happier with a "fairer" tax system even if it generated less money?

 

[Triggaaar]

So you'd be happier with a "fairer" tax system even if it generated less money?

What? Where have I proposed that?

 

[Rod Marsh]

What? Where have I proposed that?

Ok, how about this. Do you think closing the loopholes will raise more money for the government?

 

[Triggaaar]

Ok, how about this. Do you think closing the loopholes will raise more money for the government?

Yes. I don't think companies like Amazon. Goodle and Starbucks pay enough, and I think we could have a system where they pay more. I don't think high earners like Jimmy Carr pay enough (1%), because of loopholes.

 

[Simster]

A far tax to those who spent their life on the dole, dipping into the social handouts at will, and never trying to gain or make anything of themselves maybe.

Of course to those who work hard and buy their own houses, and have saving for a rainy, (rather than buy iphones, PS4's, fags, and beer whilst living in a shithole of a rented hovel paid for by the tax payer), those who pay high taxes already, might disagree that taxing the money again when they pass onto to their children, is probably one of the most unfair most evil taxes there is.

Why the **** should a dead persons money, be distributed to anyone other than the people they choose it to be distributed too, ie their family in most cases.

What's next. Lets just double VAT for anyone over retirement age, with more than £350000 in assets. Why wait for them to die? lets just kill them off and take all their money and distribute it among those who think works a dirty word for rich people!

The left do come up with some shit, but this really is up there with the maddest of it.

Probably best way to raise taxes, is to make the multi-nationals, Starbucks, Amazon, Ebay, Google, Facebook and all, pay their fair taxes and not let them hide their UK profits in Ireland or Luxembourg. You can just keep taxing the rich, otherwise they will join the likes of the multi-nationals and pay taxes abroad. THen what are you going to do?

Typical left. GRAB GRAB GRAB. Short term grabbing, no long term thinking.

Sorry, but this is Daily Mail drivel from start to finish. For a start, *I've* not lived a life on the dole and *I* consider it a fair tax and there are millions like me, so this is a "fair tax" to a lot more people than your relatively small subset of British society. I should also be clear that I'm not saying there shouldn't be some level of inheritance, just that to not tax that inheritance seems grossly unfair on people who never stood a chance.

I personally believe a dead person's money ought to be distributed in a fair way across the society that helped them become wealthy, simply because there are economic arguments against pretty much all other methods of taxation. How is it fair that wealth remains in families from generation to generation, through no other reason than an accident of birth?

Mad? I think the madness is there for all to see.

Your flippant remarks about doubling VAT on people aged 65+ just about sum up the daftness of your position. If you can't see the difference between taxing a pensioner in their retirement years and taxing a dead person's estate for the benefit of society as a whole, then you're a lost cause.

But hey, you carry on moaning about making multi-nationals not paying their taxes. I won't disagree with you, but if you're happy to label the left with this GRAB mentality, then it's reasonable to label the right as GREEDY, and as having no appetite to make the super-wealthy and multi-nationals pay their dues.

 

[highflyer]

Great idea. Wealthy people are the most mobile in the world. A 75% inheritance tax would just be telling them to leave to country. Jobs, tax revenue would all be affected. I'm not sure people hoard their wealth either, where do you get that information from? I'd rather individuals spend the money on goods and services rather than the government.

There is little evidence that rich people will move the way it is often suggested. In reality people (even the rich) live somewhere for many reasons and most of those are not financial, so while this is used as a threat, it is largely an empty one (same applies to companies and corporation tax btw).

In terms of hoarded wealth estimates say anything from $7.5 to $30 trillion stashed offshore. And what about all the boom in 'investment property' across London and now the rest of the country?

Regarding the original topic, I haven't read the whole of this thread, but my only observation so far is that i already knew that Diane Abbott is pretty hopeless and should be nowhere near the front line of politics (which doesn't excuse a lot of the racist and misogynistic abuse she gets). What i hadn't previously realised is how piss-poor Teresa May is at talking, debating and defending policies.

 

[Rod Marsh]

There is little evidence that rich people will move the way it is often suggested. In reality people (even the rich) live somewhere for many reasons and most of those are not financial, so while this is used as a threat, it is largely an empty one (same applies to companies and corporation tax btw).

In terms of hoarded wealth estimates say anything from $7.5 to $30 trillion stashed offshore. And what about all the boom in 'investment property' across London and now the rest of the country?

Regarding the original topic, I haven't read the whole of this thread, but my only observation so far is that i already knew that Diane Abbott is pretty hopeless and should be nowhere near the front line of politics (which doesn't excuse a lot of the racist and misogynistic abuse she gets). What i hadn't previously realised is how piss-poor Teresa May is at talking, debating and defending policies.

There are many reasons for the boom in investment property and property price rises in general. Wealthy people will move if given enough pressure, just keep loading up the rich with extra taxes as they can afford it is such a poor argument. It's always the fault of the rich. I'd prefer to see a lower taxation level. There are many economists that argue it would generate more money for the economy and at least put the additional money in the hands of the individual rather than that of the government.

I'm with you on Diane Abbott though. Totally hopeless.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

People moan about wages being stagnant under the Tory's. Diane Abbott wants to pay police officers £8,000 per year.

 

[Rod Marsh]

Yes. I don't think companies like Amazon. Goodle and Starbucks pay enough, and I think we could have a system where they pay more. I don't think high earners like Jimmy Carr pay enough (1%), because of loopholes.

And if that cost people in the UK there jobs you'd also be comfortable with that? Additionally the extra burden on the state, decreased tax revenues.