Gransnet forums

News & politics

Taxing the wealthy, point of discussion.

(297 Posts)
Whitewavemark2 Sat 12-Oct-24 09:33:06

This is the view of the guardian - I thought it worth a discussion.

Taxing the rich: essential for economic fairness and growth
Powerful vested interests are trying to stop the wealthy from paying their fair share.

Denis Healey is often misquoted as saying he wanted to “squeeze the rich until the pips squeak” in the 1970s. He never actually used that phrase. What Labour’s finance spokesman did predict, however, was that his proposed top tax rate would spark “howls of anguish from the 80,000 people” wealthy enough to pay. With Labour in power again, it seems plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. On Thursday this newspaper reported that Rachel Reeves, Healey’s successor in the Treasury, was looking at taxing the rich more by increasing capital gains tax. That would be a very good idea. Yet “howls of anguish” fill the airwaves and can be found on newspaper front pages. Ms Reeves should ignore them.
For decades the rich have projected ideas that support their interests, notably by reframing political language to valorise “wealth creators”. Post the financial crisis, this has been a harder sell. But plutocrats won’t easily give up their muscle, privileges and wealth. In Britain, the grossly unfair distribution of power fuels the effort to protect 3,000 individuals in private equity from Labour’s plan to make them pay their fair share in tax. It’s absurd to think that successful capitalists require an annual state subsidy of £188,000 just to perform their roles. However, this is probably only the beginning of Labour’s efforts. On paper, Britain’s tax system seems relatively progressive, with a headline rate of 47% for those earning over £3m. In reality, nearly a quarter of this ultra-wealthy group pays less than 12% in taxes.
The true scale of income inequality in the UK has been obscured by the methods the wealthy use to generate income. Current measurements exclude the capital gains from selling or shutting down businesses – one of the primary ways the rich earn money and benefit from lower tax rates. A 2020 study found that the top 1%’s share of total income had stayed steady at 14% since 1997. However, when capital gains were included, that figure rose to 17%, with the bulk of the increase concentrated among the ultra-wealthy.
Ms Reeves should act to make Britain more productive. This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted how the current tax system discourages investment, undermines productivity, and ultimately makes the country poorer. To reform capital gains tax the chancellor should look at the work of researchers from the Centre for Analysis of Taxation (CenTax). Their latest paper provides a blueprint for necessary reforms. It proposes aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise productive investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax (common in major economies) to prevent individuals from dodging British taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. In total the package would raise £14bn.
Capital gains tax has morphed into a driver of inequality. The top 5,000 taxpayers account for over half of the taxable gains, receiving an average of nearly £7m each. In fact, the benefits per capita are four times higher in London compared with poorer UK regions. Creating a low-poverty, low-inequality society requires, as the Beveridge report declared in 1942, much more than “patching”. But powerful vested interests are pushing to make opposition to taxing the rich a key element of UK economic policy. Ms Reeves must remain committed to building a fairer and more productive economy, and taxing the rich is essential to achieving that goal.

Fleurpepper Sun 13-Oct-24 21:26:37

Allira

PamelaJ1

I want people to be innovative, take risks, employ others make money but…
My daughter didn’t get a grant( when there were such things) to go to university but my husband’s employer’s daughter did.
He owned nothing, not his top of the range land rover, not his house, nothing. Everything belonged to the limited company.
Somehow that didn’t seem fair to me.

Years ago we knew someone who had means-tested bursaries for both of their children to attend a local private school because their income was so low.

Everything belonged to their own company.

Yep, multiple times.

David49 Sun 13-Oct-24 21:06:21

Norah

Oreo

Very interesting SGBoo and you make good points about the risks of being self employed, no certainty.

Correct, no certainty whatsoever.

Correct there is no certainty but if you are good at your job the rewards are great, I became self employed at 21 and am still self employed at 75, I’ve changed direction 3 times, it doesn’t suit everyone. You are always going to work longer hours, so if you expect to work 9-5 5 days a week forget it.

I’ve always found making money easy, holding on to it is the hard part, there is always someone who needs to be paid.
Including the Tax Man.

Norah Sun 13-Oct-24 19:08:25

Oreo

Very interesting SGBoo and you make good points about the risks of being self employed, no certainty.

Correct, no certainty whatsoever.

Allira Sun 13-Oct-24 18:47:25

I don't know anyone who is super-rich although I know of people who are.

Obviously I move in the wrong circles!

Allira Sun 13-Oct-24 18:43:46

PamelaJ1

I want people to be innovative, take risks, employ others make money but…
My daughter didn’t get a grant( when there were such things) to go to university but my husband’s employer’s daughter did.
He owned nothing, not his top of the range land rover, not his house, nothing. Everything belonged to the limited company.
Somehow that didn’t seem fair to me.

Years ago we knew someone who had means-tested bursaries for both of their children to attend a local private school because their income was so low.

Everything belonged to their own company.

Fleurpepper Sun 13-Oct-24 18:36:23

Bravo, why not more like him. Proud to pay tax in UK on vast fortune he just could nto spend if he tried.

'John Caudwell waxes lyrical about paying tax in UK

Billionaire Caudwell says he is a ‘patriot’, and took a swipe at the wealthy individuals who are threatening to leave the country should they be asked to put more into the national pot. The Labour government is set to deliver its first budget at the end of the month.

It’s rumoured that specific windfall taxes and a potential hike to the capital gains tax could be implemented by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. The party has already confirmed that they will be charging VAT on private school fees, which has caused some discontent among the upper classes.
Patriotic billionaire ‘staying right here’

But those with the money are being urged to cough-up what they owe by Mr. Caudwell. On Sunday, he made an impassioned defence of the UK, lauding our education level, cultural significance, and sites of historical value. Why aren’t more billionaires saying this?'

Oreo Sun 13-Oct-24 17:48:46

Very interesting SGBoo and you make good points about the risks of being self employed, no certainty.

Wyllow3 Sun 13-Oct-24 15:03:07

Well, thank you both for a look into a world I knew little of!

Whitewavemark2 Sun 13-Oct-24 14:49:02

Dinahmo

SGBoo

Those consultants/contractors who used IR 35 did so believing that they would save tax. It was used lot by the health and social services so that they didn't have to pay holiday or sick pay. I spent several hours some years ago dealing with an HMRC enquiry into my niece's earnings. It was a rip off.

She got involved with it because she wanted to go back to Uni and to work part time. She could only do this if she operated as a limited company.

If you only worked for 3 months and have paid income tax as though you were working for a longer period then you will get a refund once your tax return is submitted.

I don't understand how you have made a £90k loss when you are working as a contractor. Your expenses will be minimal.

If the wealthy make losses on their investments they can offset those losses against their gains.

Having read to the end of your post, either your accountant is rubbish or you are making most of your up.

I could go on, but frankly, especially as I am suffering from the anesthetics after an op my brain is rather foggy.

I agree.

Dinahmo Sun 13-Oct-24 14:07:16

PamelaJ1

I want people to be innovative, take risks, employ others make money but…
My daughter didn’t get a grant( when there were such things) to go to university but my husband’s employer’s daughter did.
He owned nothing, not his top of the range land rover, not his house, nothing. Everything belonged to the limited company.
Somehow that didn’t seem fair to me.

He will have been taxed on those benefits.

Dinahmo Sun 13-Oct-24 14:06:22

SGBoo

Those consultants/contractors who used IR 35 did so believing that they would save tax. It was used lot by the health and social services so that they didn't have to pay holiday or sick pay. I spent several hours some years ago dealing with an HMRC enquiry into my niece's earnings. It was a rip off.

She got involved with it because she wanted to go back to Uni and to work part time. She could only do this if she operated as a limited company.

If you only worked for 3 months and have paid income tax as though you were working for a longer period then you will get a refund once your tax return is submitted.

I don't understand how you have made a £90k loss when you are working as a contractor. Your expenses will be minimal.

If the wealthy make losses on their investments they can offset those losses against their gains.

Having read to the end of your post, either your accountant is rubbish or you are making most of your up.

I could go on, but frankly, especially as I am suffering from the anesthetics after an op my brain is rather foggy.

PamelaJ1 Sun 13-Oct-24 14:03:17

I want people to be innovative, take risks, employ others make money but…
My daughter didn’t get a grant( when there were such things) to go to university but my husband’s employer’s daughter did.
He owned nothing, not his top of the range land rover, not his house, nothing. Everything belonged to the limited company.
Somehow that didn’t seem fair to me.

SGBoo Sun 13-Oct-24 13:48:58

I think the tax system needs a complete overhaul.
Investing and taking a risk of loss but penalised if you make a profit sounds daft to me - I just lost £90k, but if I make a few £k back I get taxed. Get lost. Allow me to take my losses into account over a 5 year period and I could be on board.

Salary for those employed is safe income. Income for tjose on benefits is secure. For those of us who are self employed it's risky, peaks and troughs and requires constant business development. Yes you might earn slightly more, but the hours you put are a lot more than those equivalent employees do because you not only work like an employee (I'm a contractor, filling gaps in companies whilst they recruit who they need) but do my books and constantly seek new contracts.

In addition, I pay an accountant over £3k pa plus my insurances and my own pension.

I've worked just 3 months this tax year. I've been taxed (inside ir35) like I have had those earnings all year. I have been required to forward pay some income tax too. I've picked mine and my employers NI and for the sh1ts and giggles paid apprenticeship levy too even though my company does not meet the threshold to pay AL. It's a joke.

I am happy to pay tax, but noone can tell me why I should have to pay >50% of what I earn when I wouldn't even lose tax allowance if I was an employee. The only reason I work contract is because noone wants to employ a 58yo with 34 years exp and pay the salary I would command. They want someone with 7-10yrs exp on £60-70k. And before anyone says that's a good salary, I earnt way more than that in 2007 - I am tech specialist with a bachelors and a masters degree in my field and two charterships.

Yes overhaul the tax system,
- get rid of IR35. Those it should apply to like TV personalities have all managed to duck out of it by saying their TV personality is their persona, not the real them. Show me 1 person who is completely themselves at work - yes none of us are, so why should it apply to any of us.
- tax the wealthy based on their income like it's employed income, but allow them to offset investment losses
- equalize allowable, VAT receipted expenses for all companies irrespective of size - my accountant won't even allow me to charge to the business account 2 Co cars leased directly to the business even though the drivers both have personal cars because HMRC says they could be used for personal miles, wtf. If I operated a large company it'd be fine. I recently had to pay £800pcm for accomodation because my contract was away from home and it's not an allowable expense!

Neither Rishi or Kier should have paid 23% /24% tax last year. Both should have paid >50%.

I get tax is complicated, but honestly the focus is in the wrong place (SMEs). Tax us on what we actually cone out with not what the contract stares we earn, because we def don't earn that number!

Fleurpepper Sun 13-Oct-24 13:14:21

Paternalism has become a very dirty word, and understandably so. Business owners who did very well, had the big houses, servants, a fancy lifestyle in so many ways- and yet felt responsible for their workers. Made sure they had a decent wage, a decent standard of work, and supporte healthcare and education, and looked after them and families in sickness and accidents and in so many other ways. Think of the big Quaker families for instance, but many others too.

Not ashamed of their wealth, but also with a great sense of responsibility for their workers. Why can't people get to a certain stage of wealth- the stage when they can't possibly even consider spending their money at all, just accumulate for the sake of .. not be happy to contribute to a better society. A well educated and healthy population benefits all- from top to bottom.

Do we want a society as in some parts of the world, people with any wealth have to live behind electrified fences, with armed guards and driving kids to school and actitvities in armoured vehicles (parts of South Africa, for instance). Vast inequalities breed resentment and finally drugs, violence and worse.

And yes, trickle down has been proven NOT to work at all.

Fleurpepper Sun 13-Oct-24 13:06:22

GrannyGravy13

Luckygirl3

We know that trickle down is a fallacy.

It is not the politics of envy but of fairness, justice and humanity.

The rich do not need the vast sums they earn - they just want them to sustain an unnecessarily spendthrift lifestyle. There needs to be some balance, but getting the richest amongst us to look seriously at that has always been a challenge.

Every time the rich spend their money on booze, clothes, watches, cars, yachts etc these items are taxed, during production and on end user purchase point.

Money makes the world go round, always has, always will.

The super rich I know don't spend most of their money in the UK. They have bought villas and yachts, and private planes, abroad- where they get low or no tax. They have great financial advice and know all the loopholes, legal, but definitely gaping holes. Little returns to support he UK economy.

nanna8 Sun 13-Oct-24 13:04:12

Wyllow3

Sorry nanna should have given more context to my remarks.

I do rather strongly react to the idea that working towards a more equitable society is based on a negative human emotion

(((Its been discussed in the past on a GN thread (I think around the election)

The phrase "Politics of Envy" comes from a much discussed book of that title (and other origins).

It's a right wing theory based on the idea that all demands for more social equality derive from envy (as in a deadly sin)

not valid political aspirations for that social equality)))

Thanks for the explanation. I have actually not heard of that book but sounds interesting. 🌷

Fleurpepper Sun 13-Oct-24 12:57:37

Indeed, I know some super rich people - they will never ever be able to spend or use their money, not even a small percentage. Even after all the mansions, the yachts, the super top public schools and horses for their kids, the fast cars, the luxury holidays all over the world. Some in their 80s, with ACs who are also very very well off. And yet spend all their time trying to avoid tax (via legal loopholes). It is an obssession for them.

Look at people like Dyson- so pro Brexit, and then took his manufature to low salary, lost cost country. And so many others.

Most don't want Labour to borrow money- and I can understand. Tories borrowed vast amounts, then scuppered the economy and Sterling values- making it even more expensive to repay.

But some want to blame Starmer and Labour. Unbelievable.

I for one is happy to not have winter fuel allowance or free prescription and pay the VAT on GCs private schools, for a start.

maddyfour Sun 13-Oct-24 12:56:33

What I suggest Fleurpepper is that we, and the government, stop pretending that the super rich will be paying more (a very few might, but the majority will not.) We need to stop pretending and we need to start being honest and say it how it is. The moderately wealthy and the comfortable but not wealthy, will be paying the extra taxes. For some of us on GN, that means you. That’s the only thing we can do because we can’t do anything else. It doesn’t matter what I (or anyone else) might ‘suggest,’ the only thing that matters is that most of us on GN, and our relatives, will be doing the paying, not the super rich!

Cumbrianmale56 Sun 13-Oct-24 12:56:06

We had an 83% top tax rate in the seventies that was a complete failure as the rich either went into tax exile or those who had to stay in the country found ways round it. I'd hope Reeves isn't going back to that failed policy of the seventies.

Dinahmo Sun 13-Oct-24 12:53:42

GrannyGravy13

Luckygirl3

We know that trickle down is a fallacy.

It is not the politics of envy but of fairness, justice and humanity.

The rich do not need the vast sums they earn - they just want them to sustain an unnecessarily spendthrift lifestyle. There needs to be some balance, but getting the richest amongst us to look seriously at that has always been a challenge.

Every time the rich spend their money on booze, clothes, watches, cars, yachts etc these items are taxed, during production and on end user purchase point.

Money makes the world go round, always has, always will.

Not necessarily the case. There are VAT exemptions for purchases exported abroad by non residents. I have clients who export abroad and no VAT is charged (obviously not EU residents)

MaizieD Sun 13-Oct-24 12:51:34

Every time the rich spend their money on booze, clothes, watches, cars, yachts etc these items are taxed, during production and on end user purchase point.

But they do not, and cannot spend, enough to sustain a nation's economy. This is the 'trickle down' fallacy which has been debunked time and time again.

It has been recognised by economists for decades that the rich have less of a propensity to spend than do those who have no choice but to spend. The rich tend to set their money to making more money for them... Extracting even more of the nation's money.

Dinahmo Sun 13-Oct-24 12:47:14

Wyllow3

People always trot out this "politics of envy" trope when it's about taxing the very rich. I see no basis for it, it's a necessity trying to raise money from those who can afford it for society as a whole. Those who have made money from a lifetime of others working for them and making a profit can afford to give away a little more (in their terms) for those who did that work.

Exactly

Dinahmo Sun 13-Oct-24 12:46:40

Aveline

Many businesses are not big. Small businesses are the backbone of the country. People keep them going as they feel responsible for their employees. What happens when owners retire? They hope to sell the business and live on what that raises but now if capital gains tax shoots up that's hitting them hard? Why should anyone large or small invest in UK if it just not worth their while?

Many businesses depend upon goodwill. The owners will have built up a good relationship with their customers etc etc. Often, when a business is sold the new owners do not have that relationship with their customers. They may be able to built upon it but often don't or can't.

Fleurpepper Sun 13-Oct-24 12:45:46

maddyfour

GrannyGravy you are right once again. The super rich will move abroad, or move their money abroad. It is those in the middle who will do the paying. My son is a lawyer. He has done well and he would be considered wealthy by many on here, although many on here sound quite wealthy to me. Anyway, my son pays an eye watering amount of tax. He doesn’t complain or try to avoid paying his taxes, but to me, the amount is eye watering. He pays enough in my opinion. Anymore would be unjust because he already pays so much. He is not super rich. He works very long hours. He could just stop doing as much work if he wanted to pay less tax, and then the government wouldn’t benefit. At the moment he’s not doing that. Those in the middle will be doing the paying, and if they wind down their businesses, or stop working so much, no one will benefit.

So, they can't tax the super rich as they will move abroad. And they can't tax the lower income and the poor, well for obvious reasons.

And yes, we, my children who have been very successful, have done very well but are not super-rich, will end up being the ones who pay- and yes, that is not fair.

So what do you suggest Labour do- as they have inherited a diabolical situation from the ones who were supposed to be the experts but chose to suck the country dry, for their own benefit, mostly.

GrannyGravy13 Sun 13-Oct-24 12:43:59

If entrepreneurs, business owners and wealthy individuals didn’t employ people the dole queues would grow daily.

As long as the employees are paid appropriately for their work and treated fairly what is the problem?