Going after the economically disadvantaged!

Germanshepherdsmum

Much of the tax he paid was CGT. He has paid the full rate of tax for earnings and capital gains. Don’t twist the figures to pretend otherwise.

So you are okay that his overall tax is 22%. I'm not "twisting" anything. I just don't agree with you.

I looked over the provided tax return documentation. It appears to me RS paid correct rate. I could be wrong of course.

I don't think anyone is saying that he didn't Norah.

What I am saying - and no one has to agree with me - is that it is wrong that different forms of income should allow him to pay 22% on his overall income while others pay 40% or more on their overall income. This while the lowest tax payers pay only 2% less than he does on their income.

DaisyAnne

I don't think anyone is saying that he didn't Norah.

What I am saying - and no one has to agree with me - is that it is wrong that different forms of income should allow him to pay 22% on his overall income while others pay 40% or more on their overall income. This while the lowest tax payers pay only 2% less than he does on their income.

Perhaps the CGT may need to change. However, CGT serves a purpose in business, as I'm sure you agree.

In my opinion, we have the most right-wing government we have had in my lifetime. Again, in my opinion, the far-right tends not to be too bothered with reality, does not do the admin, doesn't care about scientific findings, etc. A sweeping generalisation, I know. However, we have to live with the stereotyping in the right-wing client media, so I see no reason not to respond correspondingly. It seems to me (opinion) that the further to the right you go, the only people seen as living effectively are the rich. That cannot be right.

The hard left does the same. They form opinions and then make the facts fit. One of those "facts" we see affecting the thinking of the right is that the wealthy 'use' money better than either other people or governments. I think this is too extreme; the extreme it becomes unbelievable and should be continuously tested and not taken for granted.

So no, I am not convinced CGT sweepingly "serves a purpose in business". I am not even sure what exactly you might mean by that. I can see no reason why the profit made on the buying and selling of shares, where the person is not involved in any other way in the business, should not attract at least the same as the continuing tax someone would pay if they earned more by working.

I can see the need for those investing and working in small and medium-sized enterprises to have some return on their tax if profit is paid back into businesses but not if it is taken as a form of earnings or simply a dividend.

One person's wealth will always be another person's poverty. We must be extremely careful of the widening of the gap between them and continually ask ourselves why inequality is so high in the UK. In this country most of the rich get their initial wealth because it is left to them. I can see no reason why that wealth should be "better", and therefore treated more favourably, than earned income.

DaisyAnne

I don't think anyone is saying that he didn't Norah.

What I am saying - and no one has to agree with me - is that it is wrong that different forms of income should allow him to pay 22% on his overall income while others pay 40% or more on their overall income. This while the lowest tax payers pay only 2% less than he does on their income.

Income tax and CGT have always been paid at different rates. If he has assets to dispose of the disposal attracts CGT, which he paid. I pay income tax, CGT and tax on dividends at different rates and have done for many years, so if you averaged out my rate of tax as you have Sunak’s you wouldn’t like it. The tax laws have been in place through successive governments. They are not there just for the benefit of Conservatives.

Just because something has always "been" done in favour of the growth of wealth (and therefore poverty) does not make it right, GSM, nor does it make it wrong. We must keep using our brains to see what suits the majority now.

I am sure, not that I wouldn't like what you paid, but that I would think it unjust. I am also very sure you will continue to fight for these privileges.

Again, just because they have been in place through successive governments does not make it right. If that were the case, we would still be living in caves just because it was what we have always done. Wasn't it the National Government in the 1930s (all three parties) that made swinging changes that were long overdue?

This form of taxation is not there for the direct benefit of Conservatives (a misnomer, in my view, for this government). They are there to please those with wealth who, in the main, but not exclusively, vote for the right-wing as those most likely to preserve their place in the inequality.

We are well aware that that different income sources are taxed at different rates, GSM (some saying about grannies and eggs comes to mind).

What is being said here is that they should not be and that these different tax rates are serving to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Though, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do get the impression that you don't find anything wrong with people living in real poverty and don't believe in even a mild redistribution of wealth.

I have to say that I find myself in complete agreement with your last two posts, DaisyAnne. 👏

It is wrong that people live in real poverty not of their own making, but you are right that I am not in favour of redistribution of wealth. Many have earned, not inherited, their wealth and created jobs for others along the way.

MaizieD

I have to say that I find myself in complete agreement with your last two posts, DaisyAnne. 👏

That's what comes from being in the centre Maizie. Everyone will agree with you at some point and everyone will disagree (quite often!).

Germanshepherdsmum

It is wrong that people live in real poverty not of their own making, but you are right that I am not in favour of redistribution of wealth. Many have earned, not inherited, their wealth and created jobs for others along the way.

But okay for people to live in wealth - not of their own making GSM?

If the first is true (and I think it rarely is), then it is also true of inheritance. If we all started the same, I could understand your thinking better, but we don't. Of course, some people believe in eugenics - that some of us are better bred. That would sway their way of thinking. Mind you, the aristocracy tried breed management and look what happened to them!

We could, of course, tax inheritance out of existence to help start on a level playing field but people would still have different advantages during their lives, paid for by the wealth of others.

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

I have to say that I find myself in complete agreement with your last two posts, DaisyAnne. 👏

That's what comes from being in the centre Maizie. Everyone will agree with you at some point and everyone will disagree (quite often!).

No need for the snippy comment, DaisyAnne.

Perfectly ok, yes. We’ve had this argument about inheritance tax before. What I have comes entirely from work. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
No government is going to equalise income tax, CGT and dividend tax, nor abolish inheritance, so this is a completely pointless argument.

MaizieD

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

I have to say that I find myself in complete agreement with your last two posts, DaisyAnne. 👏

That's what comes from being in the centre Maizie. Everyone will agree with you at some point and everyone will disagree (quite often!).

No need for the snippy comment, DaisyAnne.

Goodness. You do sit waiting to take offence. The above was typed with a gentle smile on my face and you are far from the only one (if that was what you thought I meant) who ever disagrees with me.

I don't want a fight so please don't try and pick one with me.

Germanshepherdsmum

Perfectly ok, yes. We’ve had this argument about inheritance tax before. What I have comes entirely from work. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
No government is going to equalise income tax, CGT and dividend tax, nor abolish inheritance, so this is a completely pointless argument.

We shall see. That doesn't mean the equalisation of taxation on earned and unearned income and the proper taxation of inheritance are not worth aiming for.

"Per ardua ad astra" has never been a bad motto. Those who have it as theirs helped us win a war. I think we have been and are in another one, but on home ground, now.

A very fine motto but equalisation of taxes is not worth aiming for. I assume that by ‘proper’ taxation of inheritance you mean increasing IHT to such a level that there is little left. As I said before, no government is going to do any of this.

Many have earned, not inherited, their wealth and created jobs for others along the way.

That is fine so long as creating jobs also goes in hand with paying the workers on whom their wealth acquisition depends a wage that enables them to live in a reasonable degree of comfort. When people who are in work need their spending power brought to a reasonable level with the aid of tax credits and state benefits there is little to commend the extremely wealthy 'job creator' for .

A very fine motto but equalisation of taxes is not worth aiming for.

Why not, GSM?

I would have thought that self-evident.

Germanshepherdsmum

I would have thought that self-evident.

Well, it might be self evident to you, but it clearly isn't to a number of posters on this thread.

So would you like to explain why you think it's not worth aiming for?

Well, perhaps you would explain how you would approach equalising taxes. What would go up and what would go down?

Nope. I asked first...

You see I know what your answer would be, which is why you won’t give it. And why I said that the result of trying to equalise taxes was self-evident.

Germanshepherdsmum

I would have thought that self-evident.

What sort of answer is that?