ronib
Another lie then? Can’t keep up.
It's all needed to fill this .......
Recalled for a further appointment after a routine mammogram
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Taxing the wealthy, point of discussion.
(297 Posts)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.
Another lie then? Can’t keep up.
Whitewavemark2
That isn’t a subsidy, that is paying due tax on a supply of services and goods.
The fact that the government is saying that it is being earmarked for extra teachers in the state sector is neither here nor there.
The fact that the government is saying that it is being earmarked for extra teachers in the state sector is neither here nor there.
It's like saying road tax is spent on the roads.
(On a smaller scale)
Wwm2 traditionally private schools had charitable status and were not designated as a business. It would be simple to have charitable status schools with no profits as vat free.
oh come on ronib. Honestly !?!
State education is not a business activity therefore outside the scope for vat purposes.
So why are parents of State school children not being charged VAT as well Wwm2? Vat 20percent on £8k is £1600. Okay?
That isn’t a subsidy, that is paying due tax on a supply of services and goods.
The fact that the government is saying that it is being earmarked for extra teachers in the state sector is neither here nor there.
ronib
LizzieDrip what do you mean by What??? Surely you must know that the 20 percent vat imposition on school fees is to pay for 6500 new teachers in the State system. That’s a subsidy. Why on earth can’t the State pay?
What???
This What???:
About 620,000 children are privately educated in the UK. Not all will be children of UK residents but a good proportion will be and the parents will, presumably, be paying income tax which helps fund the £8,000 per pupil in the public sector.
LizzieDrip what do you mean by What??? Surely you must know that the 20 percent vat imposition on school fees is to pay for 6500 new teachers in the State system. That’s a subsidy. Why on earth can’t the State pay?
As long as they pay tax of course.
😂
Yes, and parents who pay for private education for their children are subsidising the education of other people's children
What???
Dinahmo
Aveline
Parents of children at private schools are subsidising LA schools already by paying their council tax from previously taxed income.
Talk of falling pupil numbers is pie in the sky right now. If numbers of formerly private pupils start to flood LA schools in January those schools certainly won't be able to cope. The promised extra 6,500 extra teachers can't be magicked up in time and another generation of children will lose out. Again. Sigh.This is annoying. As a child free people my DH and I have been subsidising education for all children. It's what you do in a civilised society. Everyone takes something from the state whether it's healthcare, education, subsidised art and music etc etc.
My own father died from cancer aged 55 so he did not get his pension, although my mother got a widows pension until she reached 60.
I doubt whether there is anyone on here who can genuinely state that they have received nothing from the state, ever, in their lives.
Yes, and parents who pay for private education for their children are subsidising the education of other people's children.
It's what happens in a fair, social just society where choice is allowed.
LizzieDrip
^It's allegorical, a treatise on social justice and the dangers of totalitariamism^
Allira yes I know that, but I don’t accept that the current Labour government is a totalitarian regime. How do you view it as such?
In reality, some are not ‘more equal’ than others; some are more wealthy; more powerful; more duplicitous; more self interested.
I believe in society that strives for equal opportunity for all children.
I never did say that LizzieDrip.
If you think I did then find my post please.
Aveline
Everyone is always happy that someone else will have to pay more.
Let's face it, it'll be us - the squeezed middle who worked and saved for our old age.
Yes 👍🏻
Fleurpepper
Exactly, so more reason to try, as a society, to help and try to balance things out, with proper support.
Agreed, Fleurpepper
However, the £1.3 billion raised from the VAT on private school fees is hardly going to make much difference to some of the improvements needed in the state education sector.
Our children have been let down, with poor, shoddy school buildings thrown up with a short shelf-life for a start.
Aveline
Parents of children at private schools are subsidising LA schools already by paying their council tax from previously taxed income.
Talk of falling pupil numbers is pie in the sky right now. If numbers of formerly private pupils start to flood LA schools in January those schools certainly won't be able to cope. The promised extra 6,500 extra teachers can't be magicked up in time and another generation of children will lose out. Again. Sigh.
This is annoying. As a child free people my DH and I have been subsidising education for all children. It's what you do in a civilised society. Everyone takes something from the state whether it's healthcare, education, subsidised art and music etc etc.
My own father died from cancer aged 55 so he did not get his pension, although my mother got a widows pension until she reached 60.
I doubt whether there is anyone on here who can genuinely state that they have received nothing from the state, ever, in their lives.
Everyone is always happy that someone else will have to pay more.
Let's face it, it'll be us - the squeezed middle who worked and saved for our old age.
I gave the stats on enrolment in private and state schools on the last page at 15:56:34.
There is no evidence of reduced numbers enrolling in private schools this academic year. (as the percentage drop in enrolments has gone down the same in both sectors because if declining numbers)
I think it unlikely that parents will enrol their children in September then remove them in January, there may be some, but its hardly the flood predicted here in GN by some.
btw, on tax, Just to point out, its always been the case that when the very poorest cant pay tax, if the very super rich can emigrate or wiggle out of taxes, it's always been those in between. I hope however those who can really best afford it can be taxed more than they are now.
Allira I have never said that the right to choose should be removed. Those who can afford can buy whatever they choose.
And, if you think we have social justice for all children in this country then I suggest you consider why millions of children in this country are currently living in absolute poverty.
It's allegorical, a treatise on social justice and the dangers of totalitariamism
Allira yes I know that, but I don’t accept that the current Labour government is a totalitarian regime. How do you view it as such?
In reality, some are not ‘more equal’ than others; some are more wealthy; more powerful; more duplicitous; more self interested.
I believe in society that strives for equal opportunity for all children.
Exactly, so more reason to try, as a society, to help and try to balance things out, with proper support.
Children will never be equal, we all know that.
There is never equality, even in a totalitarian society.
Some are always more equal than others.
Children will never be equal, we all know that.
No implication at all. What I am saying, and what I know to be the case, where State schools are excellent, priorities and well-funded, the vast majority do not choose to go private. And the ones with influence, and means in all sorts of ways, support the local school- and in turn support all children, not just their own.
It works very well. And the benefits are for all, society at large, economy, employers, and so much more.
Casdon but there wasn’t sufficient notice given for parents whose children were going through private education was there?
Freedom of choice is only for the very wealthy. So best not be poor it seems.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »