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.

David49 Wed 16-Oct-24 13:41:34

Too much saving is bad for the economy which is Japans problem nobody spends much.

Yet our own government encourages us to save or pay into pensions and gives us incentives to do it, it probably is correct that large savers pay least. However interest on savings are taxed but with interest rates low very little is contributed to the economy

Doodledog Wed 16-Oct-24 13:48:08

Yes, I know - I was agreeing with you, and responding to GrannyRose, and to newnanny above.

Doodledog Wed 16-Oct-24 13:48:34

Doodledog

Yes, I know - I was agreeing with you, and responding to GrannyRose, and to newnanny above.

Sorry - done it again - that was to Maisie.

Aveline Wed 16-Oct-24 13:58:35

So what are they spending?

GrannyGravy13 Wed 16-Oct-24 14:02:46

So basically if we save for our retirement we are screwed!

The alternative is to spend every last penny, rely on the state to look after us in our retirement, and again we are screwed!

If I was a conspiracy theorist I might think that the assisted dying Bill, had an alternative agenda.

MaizieD Wed 16-Oct-24 14:11:00

That's daft, GG13. No need to go from one extreme to the other.

GrannyGravy13 Wed 16-Oct-24 14:13:02

MaizieD

That's daft, GG13. No need to go from one extreme to the other.

I probably should have put an emoji on the end to indicate that it was tongue in cheek

Dinahmo Wed 16-Oct-24 14:50:17

MaizieD

Big businesses run on loans...

In the 80s I worked for one of the top 3 firms of chartered accountants with a few hundred partners. The year end was 31 December and each December the only bills paid were salaries. No drawings for the partners. The reason for this was getting the bank account into credit once a year. The rest of the time the firm operated on its overdraft facility.

Allira Wed 16-Oct-24 15:00:13

GrannyGravy13

So basically if we save for our retirement we are screwed!

The alternative is to spend every last penny, rely on the state to look after us in our retirement, and again we are screwed!

If I was a conspiracy theorist I might think that the assisted dying Bill, had an alternative agenda.

😁

Well, it would save a few ££££ certainly.

We can be spenders unless we've first saved the money, so many people are both.
As far as keeping local tradespeople going, we looked at a new kitchen but April is the soonest it could be fitted and as for decorators - a year to 18 months wait!

Doodledog Wed 16-Oct-24 15:21:48

I think all we can do is what we can given what we've got, and where our various comfort zones sit.

Some prefer to spend, some to save, many do both and some can't easily do either.

It's when people go on about how what they do is for everyone's benefit and get self-righteous about how they prop up the economy by saving, by spending, by being self-employed or whatever that it can be annoying. Most of us do what works for us - there are very few unselfish people when it comes to personal finance.

The likes of Bill Gates can donate millions to charity, but writes it off against tax, and anyway has more leftover than he could possibly spend. The rest of us muddle through one way or another and keep quiet about it - it's just best to be honest when discussions do arise. Most of us make no ripples in the water grin.

Dinahmo Wed 16-Oct-24 15:43:13

The rest of us can get a tax deduction too. And at the higher rates.

escaped Wed 16-Oct-24 15:54:50

Agreed.
So, it seems to depend on your individual beliefs how you perceive others' spending habits.

You might view people who don't spend money as deliberately unwilling to contribute to the common good. You might also criticise them for not stimulating economic growth in communities. Whereas I might see these people as good role models, with their donations to charities, and their being more than self-sufficient.
I'm not rich enough to understand how peoples' minds work in these situations, but I agree with David earlier that improving your life and your family's life is tops. To be honest, that's what causes me anxiety and a desire to squirrel away my money. No self-righteousness.

GrannyRose15 Thu 17-Oct-24 20:30:06

I wouldn’t like to see what happened to our economy if no-one had any spare money. Would you?

Doodledog Thu 17-Oct-24 22:31:55

It wouldn't operate if we all lived subsistence lives.

David49 Fri 18-Oct-24 06:39:54

Doodledog

It wouldn't operate if we all lived subsistence lives.

The issue is not about subsistence, it’s about paying for services that we demand from the government. We need to protect the vulnerable but whatever services we want we have to pay for, there is no free lunch.
So either demand less or accept we need to pay more.

Doodledog Fri 18-Oct-24 08:16:57

How does what I said contradict that?

The question was how the economy would operate if we didn’t have spare money to circulate. My reply was that it wouldn’t. A subsistence income is one where there is no spare money. You seem to be arguing for the sake of it.

MaizieD Fri 18-Oct-24 08:51:03

David49

Doodledog

It wouldn't operate if we all lived subsistence lives.

The issue is not about subsistence, it’s about paying for services that we demand from the government. We need to protect the vulnerable but whatever services we want we have to pay for, there is no free lunch.
So either demand less or accept we need to pay more.

When it is the government that issues, directly by spending, or indirectly via the banks, most of the money in the economy it seems like a really torturous process to issue the money and then get it back off us to pay for state services! The government paying directly for them would be so much less complicated😆

So, of course, that is how it does actually work.

I would have said the same as Dd. We'd live subsistence lives. A few million of us already do... But the 'spare cash' is what drives the economy. It has nothing to do with providing state services.

David49 Fri 18-Oct-24 08:53:43

It was your use of the word “subsistence”, we need to demand less of the services and benefits we get and concentrate on the essentials. The nonessential frills we have cost a great deal cut them out and we have more to spend on essentials like children’s services, and elderly care.

I believe the state should provide the essentials, and those that can afford to support themselves should not be getting free handouts or benefits. We will see how far Labour go down that road at the budget.

growstuff Fri 18-Oct-24 09:00:09

Which non-essential handouts and benefits do people receive from the government?

I'm genuinely interested because I'd like some.

MaizieD Fri 18-Oct-24 09:11:06

You're not talking about individuals having spare cash, (which is how, I think, Dd and I interpreted it) are you David. You are talking about the state not having any spare cash, aren't you?

Which is a pretty mediaeval view of the state budget when, in truth, it creates all its 'cash' and, subject to constraints such as the non availability of resources, has no reason ever to be 'short' of it.

The political message, which we've been relentlessly fed over the last 40 or so decades, of 'black holes' and household type budgets is absolute nonsense.

Keynes had the right of it back in the '40s. 'Anything we can do we can afford'

David49 Fri 18-Oct-24 09:18:48

growstuff

Which non-essential handouts and benefits do people receive from the government?

I'm genuinely interested because I'd like some.

There are many here ls one

Birmingham spent £18m of special needs transport for special needs children last year, this may be desirable but it’s not an essential need.
Cutting it out means more can be spent on child protection hopefully preventing recurrence of cases like Sara Sharif which I would regard as first priority.

There are many many others including WFA.

MissAdventure Fri 18-Oct-24 09:19:57

For some people, looking after their families means spending beyond their means in the here and now, or ending up homeless.

I doubt there are many people who find 1500 a month an absolute joy to pay for often substandard properties, but many, many, have to pay that. (And more!)

David49 Fri 18-Oct-24 09:35:10

MaizieD

You're not talking about individuals having spare cash, (which is how, I think, Dd and I interpreted it) are you David. You are talking about the state not having any spare cash, aren't you?

Which is a pretty mediaeval view of the state budget when, in truth, it creates all its 'cash' and, subject to constraints such as the non availability of resources, has no reason ever to be 'short' of it.

The political message, which we've been relentlessly fed over the last 40 or so decades, of 'black holes' and household type budgets is absolute nonsense.

Keynes had the right of it back in the '40s. 'Anything we can do we can afford'

Nothing to do with household budgets, a business budget is pretty close.

The state borrows/creates money just like a business, to invest in services, infrastructure and growth, taxation brings back most or all of that, if there is a shortfall borrowing has to increase.

The chancellor has stated that the aim is to pay for day to day costs including loan interest from taxation, any additional borrowing would be to improve growth.

My own view is that it is a very good aim and I would be interested to hear and arguments to the contrary.

MaizieD Fri 18-Oct-24 09:45:05

The state borrows/creates money just like a business,

Businesses don't create money, David. Only the state can create money. All that businesses do is gather in money from the existing pool of money in circulation. They don't add to it at all.

There is absolutely no need for the state to 'borrow' from anyone, it could finance itself directly.

David49 Fri 18-Oct-24 10:01:37

Yet almost all governments have debt they all borrow many use QE to create money, that’s the way that the global financial system works.
You are proposing a system that does not exist where there is no outside trade.