Redistribution of wealth in the UK

Why don't we look at the Scandanavian countries which have higher taxation of the rich, much lower inequality, an overall higher standard of living and much better scores on measures of happiness?

Interestingly, income tax in Norway is relatively low - 22% across the board. VAT is relatively high and there is a wealth tax. That means that people can keep most of the money they earn, but pay more tax, the more they spend and accumulate, so it ends up being more progressive.

I'm not sure why you aren't sure why I'm at a loss - I keep saying it. Do you think I'm pretending?

You say 'government spends the money' before taxation - which money?

Doodledog

I'm not sure why you aren't sure why I'm at a loss - I keep saying it. Do you think I'm pretending?

You say 'government spends the money' before taxation - which money?

The money it creates.

The government has always created its money. How do you account for a population that has steadily increased (e.g from 45 million in the early 1950s to 60 million+ now) and the amount of money in circulation increasing to the extent that, not only is there still enough to go round, but people have a far larger amount of it than they did 70 years ago? We haven't earned it through foreign trade, nor have we stolen it from anyone.... Nor does the Bank of England have vaults full of it...

I can't account for it. I genuinely don't understand.

I'm not setting out to disagree, I just don't understand why, if governments can create money, they don't all do so. Why are there poor countries and rich ones, if all the poor ones need to do is create money? And why would other countries buy from us at prices we set, when the value of money is meaningless?

Try reading this, DD, from the Bank of England Quarterly bulletin 2014.

www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-in-the-modern-economy-an-introduction.pdf?la=en&hash=E43CDFDBB5A23D672F4D09B13DF135E6715EEDAC

Really the Apex needs to be dismantled- i.e. the RF. Not a good example when talking of equality.

As some have suggested we need to concentrate on the poorer paid. Money from the wealthy is never going to be successfully transferred into the pockets of the poor. The current unrest is due to the lack of respect and monetary reward given to those workers in this country who are essential to keeping the country running.
A Workers Rights Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in 2019 and if I remember rightly never progressed past the 1st reading.
I have come to the conclusion that the Tories and elite have taken these essential workers for granted for far too long. we currently have a proliferation of so called non jobs. Zero hours contracts, jobs with no contracts and ofcourse' with these jobs - no benefits.
Unions are not just bellyaching about pay but the work and conditions that they can see looming ahead. They are visualising staff being laid of and then re-engaged with poorer terms of employment and less security.
I would certainly like to know why the Tory government halted the Workers Rights Bill.

I agree with your post yesterday at 17.19 MaizieD except that you didn't mention the workers. Without them there would be no profits to be distributed to shareholders and bonuses to directors etc.

When I was first in articles, back in the 70s the father of a young colleague had two companies involved with steel fixing and scaffolding etc. He spent some days every week on the golf course and his son used to moan about the workers. I accept that the father had the idea for the business and built it up but, without the continuing work force he would no longer have a business. That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I'm with M0nica.

@M0nica really interesting proposals - re directors it’s incredibly unfair. My partner is a director and the company rules our lives. He is never off duty and fights very hard for an excellent working environment for his employees (paid maternity leave for a year for example.) His employees go home and they’re off duty - he is never off duty. The idea that that he shouldn’t have the perks is ludicrous- he works the hardest by a million miles. Many directors of smaller companies do.

Dinahmo

I agree with your post yesterday at 17.19 MaizieD except that you didn't mention the workers. Without them there would be no profits to be distributed to shareholders and bonuses to directors etc.

When I was first in articles, back in the 70s the father of a young colleague had two companies involved with steel fixing and scaffolding etc. He spent some days every week on the golf course and his son used to moan about the workers. I accept that the father had the idea for the business and built it up but, without the continuing work force he would no longer have a business. That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I don't think it was my 17.19 post, Dinahmo, that was about but never mind

That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I continue to find it extremely ironic that 250 years ago, Adam Smith, supposedly the 'father' of the market orientated neoclassical economics which predominate to day, said this in his famous 'The Wealth of Nations':

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

Oops, got distracted while writing first sentence.

It should say '...that was about workers...'

Whilst in no way am I saying the lower paid should not be paid more but I want to redress the balance when it comes to the argument on redistributing wealth. There are some highly paid people, who have gone through University, worked their way up the ladder, work extremely hard and long hours under a great deal of pressure and responsibility for teams ( and yes, before anyone feels the need to say it - I know nurses do also). They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive. Why should they be made to feel guilty for their achievements?

They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive.

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

MaizieD

^They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive. ^

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Because you have no allowance if your income is over £126,000

*(I believe that is the number).

Anyone earning more than £125,000 receives no personal tax allowance.

I am horrified to see the income gap between rich & poor at the moment in the uk, and the demonising of benefits claimants to justify cutting benefits. I have had my time of claiming benefits & used them to get me through a bad time.
the wealthy pay very little tax as they use specialists to tell them how to avoid it. The EU are cracking down on this & I think this was why the Tories supported leaving the EU. I welcome a Labour gov't & am happy to pay more tax but rather than see it go to the already wealthy. The NHS needs better management, nowadays their income goes to private companies, such as test n trace (their fee is included in NHS expenditure as are others) if the money allocated to the NHS was spent directly on patient care we'd have a much better service.

MaizieD

^They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive. ^

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Both my daughters have worked their socks off to achieve what they have done against great adversity- female being one! I am not defending them, they don't require that. Also anyone earning more than £125,000 gets no tax allowance and pay 40%-45% tax on what they earn.

GrannySeaside51

MaizieD

They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive.

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Both my daughters have worked their socks off to achieve what they have done against great adversity- female being one! I am not defending them, they don't require that. Also anyone earning more than £125,000 gets no tax allowance and pay 40%-45% tax on what they earn.

Indeed. That is precisely how taxes are paid.

Let’s face it , some of what are described as poor are just feckless. My late partner’s ex is classed as poor , as are the rest of the family. They live hand-to- mouth, on benefits, hand-outs and money lenders. There’s never a spare scrap of food in the house and Christmas / birthdays for the many offspring usually consists of IOU s. However, there are always cigarettes, drugs and various alcoholic beverages in their houses and foreign holidays to be had every year.

GrannySeaside51

Anyone earning more than £125,000 receives no personal tax allowance.

That is not quite true. The personal allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 or adjusted net income over £100k. When someone reaches £125,140 their PA is Nil.

The important factor is adjusted net income. This income is after deduction of pension contributions (paid by themselves of their employers), charitable donations made under gift aid and trading losses.

The more one earns the more likely they (or their employers) will be paying large pension contributions. They could probably ask for a larger part of their salary to be paid into their pension fund, rather than taking it as earnings.

One partner could be in highly paid employment and their partner could be self employed. They could form a trading partnership and share losses.

Many wealthy people also own farms which, especially if a manager is employed, invariably make losses which can be set off against their other income. Look at J Clarkson and his farm. I would think that it is highly unlikely that his farm is making a profit.

So, it's necessary to look in depth into the actual emolments, rather than the taxable income. There's a difference.

The disparities are enormous.

Just checked on Google Maps and the distance between Grenfell Tower and Phillimore Gardens (average house price £24 million) is a mere 1.3 miles, but they might as well be a million miles apart.

Maximum council tax in Kensington & Chelsea is £1,749 - but try and squeeze a little more CT out of the extremely wealthy and all you hear is about little old ladies living out their days in their much-loved family homes, so nope, they stay ludicrously low for the very rich.

MaizieD

Dinahmo

I agree with your post yesterday at 17.19 MaizieD except that you didn't mention the workers. Without them there would be no profits to be distributed to shareholders and bonuses to directors etc.

When I was first in articles, back in the 70s the father of a young colleague had two companies involved with steel fixing and scaffolding etc. He spent some days every week on the golf course and his son used to moan about the workers. I accept that the father had the idea for the business and built it up but, without the continuing work force he would no longer have a business. That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I don't think it was my 17.19 post, Dinahmo, that was about but never mind

That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I continue to find it extremely ironic that 250 years ago, Adam Smith, supposedly the 'father' of the market orientated neoclassical economics which predominate to day, said this in his famous 'The Wealth of Nations':

^No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged^

Let's not forget that quotation Maizie.

There is nothing new about it. It was always like that.??????