Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

Why are the poor never described as hard-working? That seems to me a fundamental injustice. Skilled and qualified nurses and teachers using food banks. Is anyone content to see that?

ISA's may be technically tax avoidance, but they are a deliberate policy to encourage savings amongst a swathe of people on a very modest scale, and I cannot think of anyone who disagrees this is a good idea from any party.

- but comments and comments about tax avoidance as we very well know are directed at higher earners and big companies who find ways to salt money away.

Poppyred wants tax avoidance to be made illegal, so that includes ISAs.

Surely ISA’s are comparing Everest to a tiny molehill in terms of tax avoidance.

Sago

We have friends that are poised to leave if Labour get in.
Our daughter,SIL and grandchildren will also be very likely to leave.
The people they employ in the home and garden, local dry cleaners, car valeters, butchers, fishmongers, restaurants, tailors etc will all suffer as a result.
The money wealthy people put into the local economy needs to be taken into account.

Where do they intend to go, Sago?.

I've always understood that 'capital flight' is, looking at past evidence, largely a bogey man rather than a reality.

Do you have an ISA Poppyred? That’s tax avoidance.

choughdancer

As a shorthand description of a much more detailed policy, I am all in favour!

Always, in times of austerity and crisis, the 'rich' have continued to get richer rather than poorer, while the 'poor' have got poorer. I think we have to find a way to prevent this.

Trickle down has been dismissed by most experts, as it is clear that most rich people don't buy more, start more businesses etc. with their excess riches; rather they are able to afford to have ways found for them to place money in the most lucrative places. When poorer/middle income people have more money in their pocket, they are much more likely to spend it, boosting the economy, or use it to start businesses, so employing other people.

I know tax avoidance is not illegal at the moment, but I think it should be if possible. I also think there should be restrictions on bonuses and other means of avoiding income tax. Surely MPs have the brains and ability to find ways to do this? And a wealth tax of some sort.

Couldn't agree more choughdancer.

I doubt MPs will sort it out though (no matter their brains or ability) because the rich will leave them in droves.

Making tax avoidance illegal would be a good start!

I agree the definition of rich needs to be made. It would not be Calendargirl's Mr Smith, nor many (if any) Gransnetters. It would be people with billions/multi-millions.

choughdancer

As a shorthand description of a much more detailed policy, I am all in favour!

Always, in times of austerity and crisis, the 'rich' have continued to get richer rather than poorer, while the 'poor' have got poorer. I think we have to find a way to prevent this.

Trickle down has been dismissed by most experts, as it is clear that most rich people don't buy more, start more businesses etc. with their excess riches; rather they are able to afford to have ways found for them to place money in the most lucrative places. When poorer/middle income people have more money in their pocket, they are much more likely to spend it, boosting the economy, or use it to start businesses, so employing other people.

I know tax avoidance is not illegal at the moment, but I think it should be if possible. I also think there should be restrictions on bonuses and other means of avoiding income tax. Surely MPs have the brains and ability to find ways to do this? And a wealth tax of some sort.

On the contrary, the high wealth individuals we know are starting businesses, seed funding, impact investing and one family has started a charitable foundation.

As a shorthand description of a much more detailed policy, I am all in favour!

Always, in times of austerity and crisis, the 'rich' have continued to get richer rather than poorer, while the 'poor' have got poorer. I think we have to find a way to prevent this.

Trickle down has been dismissed by most experts, as it is clear that most rich people don't buy more, start more businesses etc. with their excess riches; rather they are able to afford to have ways found for them to place money in the most lucrative places. When poorer/middle income people have more money in their pocket, they are much more likely to spend it, boosting the economy, or use it to start businesses, so employing other people.

I know tax avoidance is not illegal at the moment, but I think it should be if possible. I also think there should be restrictions on bonuses and other means of avoiding income tax. Surely MPs have the brains and ability to find ways to do this? And a wealth tax of some sort.

Yes, define ‘rich’.

Is it the really wealthy celebrities, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger et al?

Or is it Mr Smith down the road, who had a ‘good’ job, (define ‘good), earning a ‘good’ salary, wife also worked and earned ‘good’ money. Moved house a few times, ended up in a nice detached in a ‘good’ area. Retired, with ‘good’ personal pensions. Savings in the bank as a result of past earnings and sensible outgoings.

Or is he classed as ‘comfortable’.

How many on GN feel they are ‘rich’?

We have friends that are poised to leave if Labour get in.
Our daughter,SIL and grandchildren will also be very likely to leave.
The people they employ in the home and garden, local dry cleaners, car valeters, butchers, fishmongers, restaurants, tailors etc will all suffer as a result.
The money wealthy people put into the local economy needs to be taken into account.

Hmmm. Just another thread started to criticise Labour with no evidence, references, or examples to even discuss.

Yes depends on what the definition of rich is. The very rich have so many means at their disposal to evade tax not good, or they can simply go abroad.

I just wish there was some multi lateral consensus to go after the really big beasts, Amazon, Google, the newly launched Sheiny Shite. for example. Their turnovers are billions they pay paltry sums of tax, but they are allowed to get away with it.

What are you referring to, Cath?

First define "the rich" and "the poor" and differentiate them from "hard-working executives" and "vulnerable people and those unable to earn"

If it is described and operated as taxing the rich to fund giving the poor the health, education and confidence to allow them to bring out their best talents (thus contributing to the community as well as to their own bank balances and well-being) it is something that the whole country can support.

If it comes over as taxing them out of spite because "the poor" resent that they are confident and successful, then "the rich" will dig their heels in and refuse to support the policy. they will hide their wealth in foreign tax-havens or take it with them to spend in countries without fiscal policies that they believe target them unfairly.

Georgesgran

It depends on what their idea of ‘rich’ is.

Agree. In principle a good idea.

It depends on what their idea of ‘rich’ is.

I thought Rachel Reeves had ruled that out?