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.

newnanny Mon 14-Oct-24 14:40:45

Personally I believe there should be one rate of tax for everyone. If people save and invest O do t see why they should pay more because others choose to spend their money. If everyone in the UK had the same amount of money some would spend within their means, others would spend everything they had then need state hand outs, others would save to pass money to their children and others would invest and make more money than they needed and wanted to pass on lots of their money to their DC and DGC. Why should savers or investors pay more tax than those who are spenders?

Allira Mon 14-Oct-24 14:43:47

Wyllow3

ronib

Wyllow3 The taxpayer is saving £8k for each child educated in the private secondary sector.

The maths aren't quite that simple. Adding or taking away one child from a state school doesn't add up to £8000 per child as such, when a considerable chunk of the £8000 is in the buildings and facilities/ongoing capital costs.

Since the overall pupil numbers are across England are due to decline by at least 100,000 per year on average up to 2030, additional pupils joining the state sector - if many actually do - it's not an £8.000 per student to accommodate them.

That's the question I asked earlier.

Does the building and maintenance of school premises come out of the £8,000 pa per pupil or a separate budget?

Doodledog Mon 14-Oct-24 14:46:52

newnanny

Personally I believe there should be one rate of tax for everyone. If people save and invest O do t see why they should pay more because others choose to spend their money. If everyone in the UK had the same amount of money some would spend within their means, others would spend everything they had then need state hand outs, others would save to pass money to their children and others would invest and make more money than they needed and wanted to pass on lots of their money to their DC and DGC. Why should savers or investors pay more tax than those who are spenders?

Because spenders pay VAT at 20%? And because the money they spend pays the wages of people who make the goods or provide the services they buy, those people pay tax on their wages, and spend the rest, paying VAT and circulating more money? Savers take money out of the economy. I totally understand the desire for a rainy day fund, and to want to help our descendants, but that is for the benefit of the individuals concerned, not for society as a whole, and taxation is about benefiting everyone.

ronib Mon 14-Oct-24 14:50:14

Wyllow3 so if as you write that overall figures of 100000 less children are not going to need education simply because the numbers have declined- why on earth is Labour funding an extra 6500 State school teachers?

ronib Mon 14-Oct-24 14:50:43

At the expense of the private sector?

Doodledog Mon 14-Oct-24 14:55:12

ronib

Wyllow3 so if as you write that overall figures of 100000 less children are not going to need education simply because the numbers have declined- why on earth is Labour funding an extra 6500 State school teachers?

Because there aren't enough. There are Geography graduates teaching Maths, and shortages across the sector because of cuts and lack of support for stat schools.

It won't be at the expense of the private sector - it will be a level playing field where tax and salaries are concerned. I dare say that if any staff are redundant because of falling rolls (unlikely) they can apply to be one of the 6500 and will be considered alongside other applicants.

Wyllow3 Mon 14-Oct-24 14:57:59

FriedGreenTomatoes2

“Among our Socialist opponents,” Sir Winston Churchill wrote, “there is great confusion. Some of them regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is—the strong and willing horse that pulls the whole cart along.”

......and conveniently quoted in the Daily Telegraph by Kamal Ahmed just yesterday.

Outdated soundbites in a very complex economic situation ....
I just totally disagree, because I don't think it's an either/or blackened white situation

One obvious example is that people pay/buy services provided by the public sector, and public sector wages (huge amounts) contribute through purchases and tax into the overall pot.

Another point that can be made here is that it isnt just an economic issue. Its people not just ££££ that make us wealthy ..you cant put a cost on dedicated doctors or teachers or carers or others working for the public. Those who make life living in a myriad of ways.

These people are not trying to shoot a tiger or milk a cow!

ronib Mon 14-Oct-24 14:59:37

Doodledog maths has always been a shortage subject and my DIL is not teaching using her Classics degree. It’s common knowledge that teachers will teach across subjects.

Dinahmo Mon 14-Oct-24 15:04:42

Many popstars and other wealthy people are quite happy to pay their taxes and to live in the UK.

Back in the 70s when working for an antiquarian book dealer I met John Paul Getty 11 who lived in Rosetti's house on the embankment. He was a UK resident. I'm not sure whether his father had become resident.

Jimmy Page once said that he was happy to pay the taxes so that he could continue to live in the UK. Many wealthy people prefer to live in England because of the benefits it has to offer. Beauty, history, culture etc.

MaizieD Mon 14-Oct-24 15:05:36

FriedGreenTomatoes2

“Among our Socialist opponents,” Sir Winston Churchill wrote, “there is great confusion. Some of them regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is—the strong and willing horse that pulls the whole cart along.”

'Private enterprise' is different from wealth. There are thousands and thousands of private enterprises which don't make their owners wealthy at all. They may provide a comfortable living, they may provide a few jobs, but they don't generate excessive wealth. They are all around us and they make a significant contribution to the economy, but 'wealth' isn't in the picture.

For every Charlie Mullins there are thousands of small plumbing businesses which provide a valuable service to their communities, but don't produce millionaires.

Not all the super rich have enterprises which provide goods and services. and employment. Many have inherited their wealth and many have made their money by speculating in the financial markets. They aren't necessarily useful members of society...

Dinahmo Mon 14-Oct-24 15:06:54

newnanny

Personally I believe there should be one rate of tax for everyone. If people save and invest O do t see why they should pay more because others choose to spend their money. If everyone in the UK had the same amount of money some would spend within their means, others would spend everything they had then need state hand outs, others would save to pass money to their children and others would invest and make more money than they needed and wanted to pass on lots of their money to their DC and DGC. Why should savers or investors pay more tax than those who are spenders?

The spenders are spending out of taxed income whether they are taxed at the basic rate or at higher rates.

I would remind you that the state pension is included in the figures of benefits paid.

escaped Mon 14-Oct-24 15:10:00

I don't think the posts quoting figures about independent schools were trying to prove anything really, just offering information as to how it is. There's no arguing the costs, as each school sets its own fees anyway. Each school can also decide how much assistance they will give parents for the next 12 months. Eton gives none, some are offering up to 10% off school fees.
The little bit of light at the end of the tunnel for the smaller schools might be that parents who can no longer afford the increase at a more expensive school have still got the opportunity to look around for cheaper establishments. The smaller independent school might therefore inherit some extra pupils to fill some of the spaces where parents can't pay.
I've long accepted the new ruling, it was a foregone conclusion. I just hope it generates the additional funding for 6,500 Maths or whatever teachers in the state sector, but that could be quite some way off.

MaizieD Mon 14-Oct-24 15:11:21

ronib

Doodledog maths has always been a shortage subject and my DIL is not teaching using her Classics degree. It’s common knowledge that teachers will teach across subjects.

It might be common knowledge, ronib but it isn't always a good thing. Some teachers struggle teaching a subject which is not their specialism.

I'll echo Dd. We need extra teachers because we don't have enough.

What is one of the advantages of private schools? They have smaller classes. Guess what, smaller classes means; more teachers. Don't state school children deserve a similar advantage?

Wyllow3 Mon 14-Oct-24 15:11:37

Allira on whether capital costs are calculated into the per pupil figure - hard to find but here you go, two days ago

"Armed with this number, we are able to use the DfE's published numbers on spending to generate estimates for the overall per-pupil costs (including capital spending). In 2024–25, that number would be £7,690 + £1,200 = £8,890."

medium.com/@diarmid.mackenzie/what-is-the-per-pupil-level-of-state-school-funding-in-2024-25-49eb05e31e48#:~:text=Armed%20with%20this%20number%2C%20we,%2B%20£1%2C200%20%3D%20£8%2C890.

Dinahmo Mon 14-Oct-24 15:12:20

Many of the self employed are quite content to continue as they are without expanding their business to employ others, although they may use the occasional sub contractor. They may not want the responsibility of employing someone and they certainly prefer not to be employed.

kiligran Mon 14-Oct-24 15:13:37

Grantanow

I noticed Mullins didn't say how much profit he had made out of his business after paying tax.

If he’s paid £22.5 million in tax I don’t begrudge his profits at all! And I don’t blame him for leaving and going to Spain.

MaizieD Mon 14-Oct-24 15:17:05

The spenders are spending out of taxed income whether they are taxed at the basic rate or at higher rates.

The spenders are also being taxed as they spend. Income tax and inheritance tax are not the only taxes...

ronib Mon 14-Oct-24 15:21:06

MaizieD of course State school pupils deserve smaller classes. 100 per cent. But with 100000 less children by 2030 wasn’t that going to happen anyway? It’s upto the State to decide acceptable classroom sizes! It’s up to the State to provide funding for education not the parents of children in the private sector.

MaizieD Mon 14-Oct-24 15:25:59

The state is just taking away a bit more of the money that it issued in the first place.😁

ronib Mon 14-Oct-24 15:28:23

MaizieD well the State doesn’t seem to have included me in its largesse. I hadn’t noticed money flowing down from the heavens around here. DH is working very hard today….

Aveline Mon 14-Oct-24 15:38:18

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.

LizzieDrip Mon 14-Oct-24 15:47:07

IMO abolishing the tax relief for private schools is one of the best things this government has done so far. It’s a move in the right direction … towards social justice for our children.

It was made clear during the election campaign that they would do this, so people voted them in knowing it would happen. No surprises🤷‍♀️

ronib Mon 14-Oct-24 15:55:35

Well let’s hope that this government starts taxing anyone using private healthcare so that NHS operations can catch up. How many millions on the list? The principle is the same- if principle and government can be applied?

Wyllow3 Mon 14-Oct-24 15:56:34

Available facts on drops in enrolment in both the private and state sector, roughly equal, due to falling numbers overall

"The Independent Schools Council (ISC) said a survey of 1,185 member schools in the UK found their rolls fell by 1.7% when the school year started last month, compared with 2023".

However in the state sector:

"However, figures for England show that state school enrolments have also been falling, mainly because of the UK’s declining birthrate over the past decade.

The DfE said there was a 2.3% fall in the number of applications for primary school places this September, and a 1.7% fall in secondary school applications.

LizzieDrip Mon 14-Oct-24 16:07:50

Well let’s hope that this government starts taxing anyone using private healthcare so that NHS operations can catch up

I agree Ronib.