Surely we must pay more taxes!?

Barleyfields

escaped

Nobody should be born with a natural silver spoon in their mouth. I think that is an unfortunate expression, because it sounds pejorative and implies a blanket disapproval.
There are people who inherit a substantial amount, but who still have principles and ethics. In deed, they even raise their own children to be hardworking and productive. The implication is often that the person who inherited does not fully appreciate the value of their advantage, and this is not true.

Yes, that is the implication and I very much resent it.

Quite irritating, innit?

Currently only 4 % of estates pay IHT increasing the rate on them will not produce much extra tax and will likely drive investment elsewhere, you have to increase the taxation on the 96 % to make any difference.
Those that want to increase the tax free amount are going to reduce the amount of tax on inheritance

Doodledog

I don't think that people who inherit are unappreciative, or anything else, as a group. Just as I don't think that anyone who believes in a fair tax system and a meritocracy is envious and penniless. Generalisations are lazy and pointless.

They are but there are some generalisations that contain some truth.

I do believe (especially after reading posts on here) that most people on "ordinary" incomes get little chance to understand the different way of thinking extraordinary riches bring.

Equally, an understanding of the extraordinarily rich for the lives and challenges of the extraordinarily poor is rare.

Maybe that needs addressing to anyone shouting and shrieking on here, though I can't see anyone doing so.

Ok, but it is difficult to discuss when generalisations abound. I was responding to those on the thread who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being envious.

I am aware that not all wealthy people are grasping, and would never suggest that they are. How am I (or anyone who feels as I do) supposed to express my opinion if it is constantly countered by accusations of being jealous or of lumping people in an income bracket together? I don’t do that, so it is extremely frustrating. I would much rather someone engaged with what I do say about meritocracy, geographical mobility, the need to drive ambition and so on, but l guess it’s easier just to assume envy and shout about generalisation.

@ Doodledog, the post wasn't directed at you personally, just like I assume yours wasn't directed at me personally. (There's already enough accusations of who said what, when, on this thread.) It doesn't really matter who the author is in this case, because it is just a generalisation.

What it serves to indicate, however, is the type of terminology often used against people who inherit a substantial amount, or who have money stashed away. The tone, which verges on jealousy - though may not be - has been noted by several posters in this discusion.

I just think that a better understanding of the various factors surrounding inheritance could help mitigate possible feelings of resentment. In my opinion, this would thereby ensure a more empathetic perspective towards people who inherit wealth, or accumulate money, and who wish to keep it.

No doubt, but if you can point to where I have ever suggested that that is the case I will be very surprised.

And generalisations about people fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their inheritance, or squabbling over keeping their money, are equally lazy and pointless.

I don't think that people who inherit are unappreciative, or anything else, as a group. Just as I don't think that anyone who believes in a fair tax system and a meritocracy is envious and penniless. Generalisations are lazy and pointless.

escaped

^Nobody should be born with a natural silver spoon in their mouth.^ I think that is an unfortunate expression, because it sounds pejorative and implies a blanket disapproval.
There are people who inherit a substantial amount, but who still have principles and ethics. In deed, they even raise their own children to be hardworking and productive. The implication is often that the person who inherited does not fully appreciate the value of their advantage, and this is not true.

Yes, that is the implication and I very much resent it.

growstuff

PoliticsNerd

growstuff

PoliticsNerd Your quote: "However, those in younger generations that I have spoken to seem to accept it as fact."

Not in my experience.

Can you tell me which post that came from, please.

One of your posts!!!!

Which one? As far as I remember I had talked to about the implications of wealth inequality, the challenges faced by the middle class, and the potential drawbacks of government infrastructure being lost to those just using it as a crock of gold, to various younger family members (25 to 50s) We all discuss politics. I had mentioned this as a line of thinking I was just starting to unravel and was surprised that they were way ahead and treated it pretty much as fact.

I didn't write that much on here because I write at too great a length as it is. But you chose to pick out one line and go into attack mode. Some people are very sad human beings

Nobody should be born with a natural silver spoon in their mouth. I think that is an unfortunate expression, because it sounds pejorative and implies a blanket disapproval.
There are people who inherit a substantial amount, but who still have principles and ethics. In deed, they even raise their own children to be hardworking and productive. The implication is often that the person who inherited does not fully appreciate the value of their advantage, and this is not true.

In which case she is probably in the 45% bracket and she will pay a chunk of CGT if and when she sells up. If she receives more in rent than she could ever earn she is paying more income tax than she otherwise would. If any of us had had an opportunity to live off an inheritance would we not have done so? I would have jumped at the chance. You sound a tad envious when you say swanning around. If she’s paying her tax and has freed up a job for someone else, what’s the problem?

MaizieD

Barleyfields

I have already explained to PN that one only has to earn just over £87k to be within the top 5% of earners. That is not a king’s ransom, though obviously some will think it is. I don’t think she commented on that.

In this discussion we are not just talking about 'earners'. We are talking about two groups, one which gets its income from paid employment and one which gets its income from investments or ownership of capital,( that it, plant and machinery used in the production of profit.)

The top 10% of those who have income from capital owns more than 50% of all wealth, it could be as much as 90% (this is from analysis of a number of countries. It is this top 10% of capital wealth holders which contributes less in taxation.

Taxation on earned income is far less easy to avoid.

Exactly! The difference between "earners" and those who live off interest/rent on capital is being ignored.

I know somebody who inherited two London properties (from childless aunts) when she was in her late 40s. She promptly gave up her job. She was quite a high earner, but she said she would be stupid to carry on working when she was receiving more in rent than she could ever earn. She's spent the last 15 years swanning around.

Her income is far higher than £87k.

I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm not against people who inherit millions being clobbered for tax.

Barleyfields

I have already explained to PN that one only has to earn just over £87k to be within the top 5% of earners. That is not a king’s ransom, though obviously some will think it is. I don’t think she commented on that.

In this discussion we are not just talking about 'earners'. We are talking about two groups, one which gets its income from paid employment and one which gets its income from investments or ownership of capital,( that it, plant and machinery used in the production of profit.)

The top 10% of those who have income from capital owns more than 50% of all wealth, it could be as much as 90% (this is from analysis of a number of countries. It is this top 10% of capital wealth holders which contributes less in taxation.

Taxation on earned income is far less easy to avoid.

growstuff there is a huge difference between being born with a silver spoon in your mouth and having the luxury of living of the interest and being left a few thousand which enables you to pay off your mortgage, or even get on the property ladder.

I am in favour of a sliding scale for tax on inheritance along with an increase in the tax free amount.

I wish that all governments would realise that without SME’s they would see a reduction in their tax collections along with an awful lot more unemployment.

PoliticsNerd

growstuff

PoliticsNerd Your quote: "However, those in younger generations that I have spoken to seem to accept it as fact."

Not in my experience.

Can you tell me which post that came from, please.

One of your posts!!!!

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

Tax free dividend allowance for 24-25 is £500, then for basic rate tax payers it’s 8.75%, higher rate 33.75% additional rate 39.35%.

Is there a compelling reason why dividends, which are income, are not taxed at the 20%, 40% and 45% rate of earned income?

And why no NICs are paid on dividend income?

No idea MaizieD I do not have any influence over tax and NI laws.

All I do know is that the incentives for people to start up businesses ( using their own money along with the risk of losing it ) and to expand and employ more people has gradually been eroded by successive governments.

I don't have a problem with incentives for SMEs. SMEs are the lifeblood of the country. Them and the public sector.

It's the inequitable treatment of the big fellas that bothers me, and of those who derive an income from completely unproductive financial dealings.

I agree with you Maizie. IMO there should be more incentives for SMEs - and I hope they're successful and make loads of money for genuine start ups.

Like you, I think those who inherit wealth and live off the interest that money makes for them should be taxed heavily. Nobody should be born with a natural silver spoon in their mouth.

I'm not sure what can be done about the "big fellas", but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about them.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

Tax free dividend allowance for 24-25 is £500, then for basic rate tax payers it’s 8.75%, higher rate 33.75% additional rate 39.35%.

Is there a compelling reason why dividends, which are income, are not taxed at the 20%, 40% and 45% rate of earned income?

And why no NICs are paid on dividend income?

No idea MaizieD I do not have any influence over tax and NI laws.

All I do know is that the incentives for people to start up businesses ( using their own money along with the risk of losing it ) and to expand and employ more people has gradually been eroded by successive governments.

I don't have a problem with incentives for SMEs. SMEs are the lifeblood of the country. Them and the public sector.

It's the inequitable treatment of the big fellas that bothers me, and of those who derive an income from completely unproductive financial dealings.

MaizieD

^Tax free dividend allowance for 24-25 is £500, then for basic rate tax payers it’s 8.75%, higher rate 33.75% additional rate 39.35%.^

Is there a compelling reason why dividends, which are income, are not taxed at the 20%, 40% and 45% rate of earned income?

And why no NICs are paid on dividend income?

No idea MaizieD I do not have any influence over tax and NI laws.

All I do know is that the incentives for people to start up businesses ( using their own money along with the risk of losing it ) and to expand and employ more people has gradually been eroded by successive governments.

Tax free dividend allowance for 24-25 is £500, then for basic rate tax payers it’s 8.75%, higher rate 33.75% additional rate 39.35%.

Is there a compelling reason why dividends, which are income, are not taxed at the 20%, 40% and 45% rate of earned income?

And why no NICs are paid on dividend income?

David49 Companies are having an increase in taxation from April, it’s called Employers NI.

Corporation tax was increased from 19% to 25% in 2023 for companies with augmented profits over £250,000.

Small profits rate of 19% for augmented profits of under £50,000.

There is a scale for profits in between.

Tax free dividend allowance for 24-25 is £500, then for basic rate tax payers it’s 8.75%, higher rate 33.75% additional rate 39.35%.

SME’s are sitting ducks for the tax man, and collect their dues on the dot, and rightly so.

How about closing the loopholes for the multinationals, cannot see any government having the balls to do that…

We need corporation tax at a relatively low level in order to attract companies to the UK. CGT could be raised further, but it’s a balancing act to avoid losing those who are important job creators but most of whose income takes the form of shares.

Barleyfields

I have already explained to PN that one only has to earn just over £87k to be within the top 5% of earners. That is not a king’s ransom, though obviously some will think it is. I don’t think she commented on that.

This is the problem if only 5% have income over £87k there are not enough to gather enough tax, you have to tax middle incomes. To get the same amount from the 5% needs an increase 20 times as much. Or if you target the top 1% it’s 100 times more.

My own view is that income tax is about right, Capital and Company taxation needs raising it’s too good for the rich