|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ed Milliband's 10p tax band
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Am I missing something, but is this latest proposal a demonstration that two important people don't understand GCSE Elementary Maths? Or are they hoping we are all too thick to notice? I said the same when it was abolished. It was the point when I lost all respect for the then Chancellor.
Suppose, to make the Maths easier, the bottom £2,000 of the standard 20p rate band is converted into a 10p rate band. Doesn't the Revenue get the same take simply by raising the tax threshold by £1,000? Isn't the effect on the poorest families exactly the same?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I was thinking the very same thing, Enoch, when I heard about this earlier today. One possible argument in favour of a 10% tax band (rather than the equivalent raising of the tax-free threshold) is that it's beneficial for people to be paying at least a little bit of income tax.
I'm far from convinced by the argument, but some have said as people are removed from the income tax regime completely they might become less engaged in their community / country. No representation without taxation, maybe. (Of course, even if one pays no income tax, it'd be tough to avoid VAT...)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I missing something, but is this latest proposal a demonstration that two important people don't understand GCSE Elementary Maths? Or are they hoping we are all too thick to notice? I said the same when it was abolished. It was the point when I lost all respect for the then Chancellor.
Suppose, to make the Maths easier, the bottom £2,000 of the standard 20p rate band is converted into a 10p rate band. Doesn't the Revenue get the same take simply by raising the tax threshold by £1,000? Isn't the effect on the poorest families exactly the same?
If the chancellor increases thresholds then, unless it does so very carefully, the main beneficiaries will be higher-rate tax payers, who will start to pay at 40/50% at a point £1,000 higher.
Ed Milliband proposes to pay for the lower rate tax by introducing a "mansion tax" on property valued at c £2,000,000 and that is a good idea.
South Coast Kevin: I'm sure those who don't pay income tax would prefer to have an income on which they would so pay tax, rather than pay VAT on goods bought with benefits payments.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the chancellor increases thresholds then, unless it does so very carefully, the main beneficiaries will be higher-rate tax payers, who will start to pay at 40/50% at a point £1,000 higher. ...
That doesn't follow at all. If you raise the point at which tax starts, you neither have to nor do not have to raise the point at which the bands change. Mind at the moment, you don't have to be all that well off to get caught by the next band up.
I've not heard anyone seriously suggest that everybody, however poor, ought to have to pay some tax. The logic of that would be that while you are on benefits, you should forfeit your vote.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
It seems I've not expressed myself clearly, sorry! I wasn't saying I believe those who don't pay (income) tax are a bit less deserving of having the vote, merely that I've seen this used as an argument against increasing the income tax threshold (and perhaps therefore in favour of a very-low-rate tax band).
I think it's a poor argument on two counts - I don't really see the connection between paying tax and deserving to have a vote, and in any case almost everyone pays some sort of tax, don't they?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ed Milliband proposes to pay for the lower rate tax by introducing a "mansion tax" on property valued at c £2,000,000 and that is a good idea.
I am amused by the term 'mansion tax'. There are plenty of £2,000,000 properties that look nothing like a mansion.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ed Milliband proposes to pay for the lower rate tax by introducing a "mansion tax" on property valued at c £2,000,000 and that is a good idea.
I am amused by the term 'mansion tax'. There are plenty of £2,000,000 properties that look nothing like a mansion.
I did put it in quotes. Some pretty ordinary London town houses fetch seven figure sums
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ed Milliband proposes to pay for the lower rate tax by introducing a "mansion tax" on property valued at c £2,000,000 and that is a good idea.
The problem for Ed. is that his proposals are badly costed, if costed at all. The amount raised by a tax on sucess, ownership and those unlucky to live in expensive areas is not guaranteed to cover the cost of implementing, administering and making up any short-fall in income/expenditure.
This is a slimy piece of political spinning and I wouldn't trust either Ed. to have honest intentions behind this announcement (interesting to see estimates that put Milibands own home just below the threshold...) and I wait to see whether the proposals for a tax on success becomes another double-spend policy like the bankers bonus tax (which is proposed to fund somewhere in the region of 20 different policies accordign to some analysits, but it may well be more, or possibly a couple fewer...)
[ 15. February 2013, 08:57: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Bollocks. We're talking about wealth here and most of that is inherited. Inheritance tax is so riddled with get out clauses that a wealth tax, paid yearly would realise a lot more than the current system and could also act as an incentive to get the wealthy to invest more constructively than they do now.
We might even come to an understanding that house price inflation is as bad as any other.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Bollocks. We're talking about wealth here and most of that is inherited. Inheritance tax is so riddled with get out clauses that a wealth tax, paid yearly would realise a lot more than the current system and could also act as an incentive to get the wealthy to invest more constructively than they do now.
We might even come to an understanding that house price inflation is as bad as any other.
That is the point though, there is inheritance tax and stamp duty already on housing, the UK already has the highest amount of housing associated tax burden of any OECD country.
A tax on the type of house you own (beyond council tax but lets not go there yet) that is applied each and every year is not a tax on earnt wealth, it is an unjust stealing of someone elses money by the state, it will require individuals and households to pay out an extra amount of money beyond what they already do on their income (somewhere in the region of £100,000 isn't it?) If such a fan of a tax on ownership and success, lets have an incremental scale for taxing all owned homes since the logical extension of any argument must be that home ownership in and of itself is acceptable to tax, and why restrict it solely to those who own homes valued over £2million? I'm not sure, beyond an argument around jealousy of success and achievement, any argument would be logically able to prevent all home ownership being taxed.
Further if we are to tax people's personal property each and every year (not the dividend increase, or reimburse the decrease) why not have a tax on ownership of any object of worth, a tax on book ownership (since that can be a form of wealth), or icon ownership, art... etc. etc. etc. In fact I guess you were on the front lines cheering with acclaim when the two idiots Balls and Brown did just that in taxing private pensions... but I may be mistaken and somehow you can justify that the two are infact utterly different in terms of investment, savings and success.
Your comments reveal a politics of envy, an instinct to say 'they shouldn't be allowed' when posed with the question: 'why should others be allowed to buy things that they wish to buy and can afford to buy with their own earned money?'
Why is your response 'they shouldn't' because your argument fails to grasp one basic truth: the money that the state spends is not created by the state nor does it flow from the state or belong to the state, it is created by the work of the individual of which the state, by public mandate, is allowed to take a percentage to pay for those things which we as a society have supposedly decided we require. If the state cannot provide within a reasonable means those things that it wants to provide then we have to consider whether we should be trying to provide all that we try to, and whether we are doing what we do in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
This proposal is just another lefty attack on aspiration and success, created in a spirit of hypocrisy and envy of others, with any luck, and most likely, it would never become reality (both the 10p tax band and the tax on success) and it will just turn into political manouvering and posteuring by a Labour Party that consistantly runs this country into the ground and can't move beyond a bogus class-warfare that no longer is relevant to the modern UK state or the real composition of the Labour party itself.
(I have to say I loved this sketch of PMQ's from this last week.)
Oh, I also meant to say: I'll look forwards to seeing your public letter to the treasury and the Labour party that states you would love to pay an extra tax on your home ownership for no other reason except you own house. If such a fan of the tax, regardless of the value of your own property, you should want to pay surely!?!
[ 15. February 2013, 11:48: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Bogus class-war? Wow, you should tell that to the Tory party, intent on demonizing the poor, and extracting as much money as possible from them, so that the rich can get richer. Oh, I forgot, we're all in this together. Yeah, right.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There are plenty of £2,000,000 properties that look nothing like a mansion.
My heart bleeds.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... a tax on sucess...
Bollocks. Bollocks for two reasons.
Bollocks because you can only tax what people have, and the more economically successful they are, the more thy can pay. Income tax is "a tax on success". VAT and excise duty and all sales taxes are taxes on success. You can't buy things unless you have the money to pay for them, and the more money you have the more you can buy. ALL taxes are "taxes on success".
Bollocks also because the way we do things now is biased towards property-owners against wage-earners. Direct property taxation would go a small way towards fixing that.
Oh, bollocks for a third reason. VAT and other sales taxes and transaction taxes in general have a dampening effect on economic activity. (*) They put friction into markets in a way that property taxes don't. Moving tax burden from transactions to wealth would produce a small but real boost in economic growth. Can you boost what doesn't exist? OK, a small but real reduction in the artificial economic decline the government is imposing on us.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We're talking about wealth here and most of that is inherited. Inheritance tax is so riddled with get out clauses that a wealth tax, paid yearly would realise a lot more than the current system and could also act as an incentive to get the wealthy to invest more constructively than they do now.
We might even come to an understanding that house price inflation is as bad as any other.
Hear hear!
The recent banking failures were kicked off by bloated house and land prices. No government of any colour has taken that seriously since the 1940s. The opposite, they like high land prices because it makes property owners richer at the expense of others. And it fools mortgage-payers into thinking they are richer than they are. No recent British government has dared to tell the truth about it.
A fair property tax is one way to help moderate house and land prices. The current Council Tax is a deeply unfair property tax, deliberately and cruelly biased towards the wealthy and rural and against the poor and urban (and yes I know poor and urban are not the same thing that is two dimensions of bias, the most stuffed are those who happen to be both poor and urban) Property taxes that are proportional to the actual prices at which land is bought and sold will tend to reduce inflation while not actually costing purchasers much, if any, more (**) because the mortgage-financed system (cheap secured loans and the expectation of capital gains) encourages buyers to borrow the most they can get away with. Tax on land is discounted by buyers. They will pay what they can, the tax diverts some cash from the banks towards government. (Same goes for a tax on capital gains on land sales - which would be better than our current stamp duty on the total price)
A fair property tax would be directly proportional to the price of the land and what's built on it, minus some small allowance. It would be rather higher than then current Council Tax, with various allowances to protect e.g. elderly widows and unemployed single mothers from pointless eviction. And it would be charged on all land - including farm land - again with some sort of threshold or allowance for different types of land use. (Possibly very large ones for, say, hillfarms, wetlands, National Trust and other historic properties, properly-managed land in national parks, etc etc - maybe 100% in some cases). Any money saved by the government would be used to reduce income tax (or even better VAT but they aren't going to do that)
Personally I think the idea of a 10% tax band is pretty irrelevant, as well as overcomplex. By far the best way to adjust income tax so that the lower-paid pay less of it is to increase the threshold of paying tax, to put up the personal allowance. (***) You don't have to put up higher-rate thresholds by the same amount if you don't want to. It would also be a very good idea to unify Income Tax and National Insurance into one assessment on a revenue-neutral basis (****) and include employers NI in the same calculation. Simpler for everybody, much more honest, cheaper to collect, benefits the lower-paid slightly more than the higher-paid, and it takes away some rather perverse kinks in the tax rates paid by people earning close to the upper limit of NI assessment. No government will do this because they are afraid of the voters reaction to increasing the "headline rate of Income Tax". In effect they all tell lies about what the tax rate actually is.
As for helping the poorest, they don't pay income tax. The way to help them through the tax system would be to cut VAT. And if you don't want to do that then give them the money directly in benefits. Or else reduce rents - and the way to do that is to reduce land prices and the way to do that is to...
(*) (**) (***) (****) Strongly-held opinions I formed many years ago when I worked for the Statistics Division of the Inland Revenue. And nothing I've heard or seen since has got anywhere near changing them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
Ed's a slimy opportunist. It was his lot that got rid of the 10p tax rate last time. Cheap trick set to lure chippy voters who are too thick to follow what Labour are up to.
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
Cheap trick set to lure chippy voters ....
I would be really surprised if there are enough fish-shop owners to influence the results of an election.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bogus class-war? Wow, you should tell that to the Tory party, intent on demonizing the poor, and extracting as much money as possible from them, so that the rich can get richer. Oh, I forgot, we're all in this together. Yeah, right.
Of course this information has no bearing on your opinion, whilst helpfully presented in chart form here . In terms of tax, the poorest are fairing better, and the richest are being hit harder already. As for making the poorer poorer, was it not under the last Labour government that the poverty gap increased, child poverty barely decreased, I could go on and on about how Labour want people poor, and keep them poor to fit ideological, political ends.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
VAT and excise duty and all sales taxes are taxes on success.
VAT etc. are taxes on consumption (of which those things that everyone needs, ie groceries, are excluded anyway) but are in part also taxes on success, I grant (which is where my belief that the tax rates on those things should be reduced as well, if not outright abolished).
Since those things are taxed at point of buying for consumption, the stamp duty paid when buying a house is the equivilant tax on consumption... if you wish to tax a person for mearly owning a home then we might as well re-tax them everyday they have a loaf of bread in the house.
I also look for an answer, why stop at houses worth £2million? Why not an incremental scale on all houses?
As Ed Balls demonstrated with Andrew Neil the other day, this is an ill-thought through, uncosted, and barely justifiable measure from two blokes who don't really know their a**e from their brains and shouldn't be unleashed to run a piss-up in a brewery let alone the UK economy.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bogus class-war? Wow, you should tell that to the Tory party, intent on demonizing the poor, and extracting as much money as possible from them, so that the rich can get richer. Oh, I forgot, we're all in this together. Yeah, right.
Of course this information has no bearing on your opinion, whilst helpfully presented in chart form here . In terms of tax, the poorest are fairing better, and the richest are being hit harder already. As for making the poorer poorer, was it not under the last Labour government that the poverty gap increased, child poverty barely decreased, I could go on and on about how Labour want people poor, and keep them poor to fit ideological, political ends.
Nice objective evidence there...Not.
Anyhow, to the meat of the arguments. In terms of tax the poor are paying less, but the difference between 5.7% and 7.8% of £10,000 is £210, or £4 per week. Big, fat, hairy deal. The poor are hit far harder by cuts in benefits and state funded services. The better off (ie, those on £50000 p.a. plus) are insulated from this by their higher incomes and wealth, while the poor don't have any surplus they can dig into when things get tough.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In terms of tax the poor are paying less, but the difference between 5.7% and 7.8% of £10,000 is £210, or £4 per week.
Yet somehow your trumpeting the state stealing other peoples money to pay for an extra £2.00 a week. Seemingly your response to these proposals should be:
quote:
Big, fat, hairy deal.
If it is isn't your response (which by your scathing tone to £4 p/w it should be) then it is just an example of jealousy and class warfare. If Labour politicians were so concerned with the poor, then the moral obligation would be to give away all earnings and possessions to a point where they draw a minimum wage... but I doubt that's ever going to happen from champagne, hypocritical, faux-concerned socialists...
As for benefits... lets start with this one: does a Tax Credit not seem inherently illogical to you? Where is the logic in the state taking money from a person only to hand it back with all the associated costs that involves? If taxes are lower and personal allowance goes up, then the ridiculous circulation of money would not need to occur.
Oh, and HMRC is not a trustworthy source? What would count in your eyes? Left-foot forward? Polly Toynbee? The Fabian Society? Ball's ex-girlfriend Stephanie Flanders? I'd be interested to find out...
[ 15. February 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bogus class-war? Wow, you should tell that to the Tory party, intent on demonizing the poor, and extracting as much money as possible from them, so that the rich can get richer. Oh, I forgot, we're all in this together. Yeah, right.
Of course this information has no bearing on your opinion, whilst helpfully presented in chart form here . In terms of tax, the poorest are fairing better, and the richest are being hit harder already. As for making the poorer poorer, was it not under the last Labour government that the poverty gap increased, child poverty barely decreased, I could go on and on about how Labour want people poor, and keep them poor to fit ideological, political ends.
I agree about Labour, which also had this fetishistic worship of the rich. But then Blair was a worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Of course this information has no bearing on your opinion, whilst helpfully presented in chart form here . In terms of tax, the poorest are fairing better, and the richest are being hit harder already.
Actually it doesn't have any bearing on the point at all. We're talking about property here, not income. Keep up at the back!
That rather rubbish little chart purports to compare tax paid by peolple with different incomes. Not rich to poor. So even if its accurate (and seeing the source I'd be mildly surprised if the lying little toerag was telling the truth) its irrelevant.
And what Sioni Sais said. Wealth is not the same as income.
quote:
Also originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Since those things are taxed at point of buying for consumption, the stamp duty paid when buying a house is the equivilant tax on consumption...
No it isn't! You don't "consume" land in one go. In fact you don't "consume" it at all because its still there when you have finished using it. Which is why buying land often increases your wealth and buying baked beans usually doesn't.
Anyway, stamp duty is a bit of a silly tax. But it is very cheap to raise, so the Revenue likes it (they do like cheap). It would be fairer (but a little more complicated) to charge a tax on capital gains on land transfers.
quote:
I also look for an answer, why stop at houses worth £2million? Why not an incremental scale on all houses?
That's exactly what I said i wanted in my previous post! Things are looking good. It has only taken me ten minutes to persuade one Tory to my point of view. If things continue like this I will have got them all in ten or twenty years!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
I also look for an answer, why stop at houses worth £2million? Why not an incremental scale on all houses?
That's exactly what I said i wanted in my previous post! Things are looking good. It has only taken me ten minutes to persuade one Tory to my point of view. If things continue like this I will have got them all in ten or twenty years!
You want to punish me for the sin of having a job that allows me to own my own house by taking more of what's mine away from me and giving it to the Almighty State. Good luck convincing me to agree with you.
Why don't you just go the whole hog and advocate in favour of nobody being allowed to own anything, and all of us being entirely dependent on the Infallible, All-Powerful And Obviously Benign State for every element of our lives?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
I'm afraid ken I'm not agreeing with you... I abhour this plan if it's applied to a small section of the home owning or all. My point in raising it is that lefty hypocrites wont go for it since this is not a matter of fairness or redistribution but a case of envy...
Yes, you are right that nobody consumes a house in one go, but very few households consume a whole loaf of bread in one go either, and therfore the logic should equally apply to a loaf of bread or a book - tax it day after day until you either consume it all, can no longer afford it, or you give it way.
The only way to do this in any way that approaches some definition of fairly would be to tax the equity increase rather than the total value of the property (since it is the increased equity that represents anything approaching income - although it is of course not income until you sell the property at which point the seller pays capital gains on the entire value of the house rather than just the increased equity value, and the buyer pays stamp duty).
[ 15. February 2013, 14:54: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You want to punish me for the sin of having a job that allows me to own my own house by taking more of what's mine away from me and giving it to the Almighty State. Good luck convincing me to agree with you.
Why don't you just go the whole hog and advocate in favour of nobody being allowed to own anything, and all of us being entirely dependent on the Infallible, All-Powerful And Obviously Benign State for every element of our lives?
How dare you succeed where someone else didn't! It's not right or fair on others who haven't!
And how dare you think that you know what is best for your life!
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
(and seeing the source I'd be mildly surprised if the lying little toerag was telling the truth)
ken, the source is HMRC if you care to actually look... and income tax was raised as the discussion moved of house ownership onto somethign else.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
The idea of taxing income is quite recent, I think. ALthough there were some earlier and short-lived examples, income tax was introduced in the UK to fund the war against Napoleon. Taxes in history hav normally been on the person or on property. For the latter some non-monetary measure of value was used such as the number of windows or fireplaces, or perhaps the width of frontage (as in the Netherlands - hence the very narrow houses you get there).
In England, the traditional way of raising money to pay for the support of the poor was to raise a parish rate. This was done by the churchwardens, which is why to this day the electorate for this position includes all living in the parish who can vote in local elections.
Even today, Council Tax is a tax on property. One problem with it is that the banding stops at too low a value. So for a house costing £15 million you would pay the same as a house costing £2 million (in today's values).
It does not seem to me inherently less good to tax property than income. After all, if you own property, you presumably benefit from it, even if not a monetary benefit. So the property is of some value, and that value is being taxed (perhaps to supply the needs of those who do not have the benefits which accrue from property).
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You want to punish me for the sin of having a job that allows me to own my own house by taking more of what's mine away from me and giving it to the Almighty State.
Er, no, where did I say anything like that? I want the amount of tax charged to be roughly proportional to the value of the property (*). A fair property tax rather than an unfair one. I also suspect that your house is not at the top end of the market, so the chances are that such a tax wouldn't make much difference.
And as long as we are going to have tax at all, I'd also quite like the amount of tax take that is assessed on property to go up a little and the amount that is assessed on income to go down a little. In a revenue-neutral way, so the total tax taken remains the same, and therefore the average remains the same as well.
That would tend to improve the position of those who are low-paid but earn enough to get into income tax. It would take more money away from those whose income from property exceeds their income from work. Not the people who own one house, or even two, but companies and individuals that own large amounts of land. I suspect that your wages are neither very low not very high (actually I more than suspect it because I know what you do for a living and I think you are paid on the same system as me) so the chances are that that would make no difference to you in the long run either.
And less of the "a job that allows me to own my own house". People who pay rent also pay property taxes because their landlords add it to the rent (assuming they are trying to make a profit). And the rent on any given property is usually higher than the mortgage repayments (again,. assuming landlords are trying to make a profit)
(*) or rather to vary monotonically with it but that is a jargon step too far.
quote:
Why don't you just go the whole hog and advocate in favour of nobody being allowed to own anything, and all of us being entirely dependent on the Infallible, All-Powerful And Obviously Benign State for every element of our lives?
Actually, by slowing down the rate of inflation in land prices, a shift of tax towards property would allow more people to own their own house, not fewer.
The number or people who can afford to buy is falling, and has been falling for some time. Increasingly people who would like to own houses are being forced to rent. In effect they are being outbid for property they might have lived in by landlords who then rent it back to them at more than they would have paid for it if they could have bought it.
I'd love to see a situation as much as possible like the one in the prophet Micah's view of a peaceful future:
quote:
..but they shall sit every man under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid...
Capitalism isn't like that, capitalism is the opposite of that. Capitalism is the system in which most people sit under someone else's vine and fig tree. And have to pay rent or mortgage to be allowed to do it. Most of us lucky enough to have a home are forced to waste our hard-earned income paying the banks or the landlords for the privilege of sitting quietly at home. Because the price of land and houses is screwed up to the maximum the average person can afford (in fact for the last couple of years its slightly higher than that) so the maximum amount of money is taken out of the individual's pockets and handed over to the accumulators of wealth. Who then use it to buy up even more of the world and impose their private enterprise taxes on even more people. So wealth and property pile up in fewer and fewer hands, and more and more of us are dependent on the rich for life and home and work.
That's one reason I'm a socialist.
Fiddling with the tax system can't bring about the rule of the saints on earth. But it might be able to stem house price inflation and reduce the price of land, and so reduce the cost of mortgages and rents and so make it a little less difficult for us to find somewhere to live, and leave a little more of our hard-earned cash in our own pockets to spend how we will rather than passing it all on to the banks and landlords and insurance companies. And we all know how well they have "invested" our money in the last few years!
[ 15. February 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
(and seeing the source I'd be mildly surprised if the lying little toerag was telling the truth)
ken, the source is HMRC if you care to actually look... and income tax was raised as the discussion moved of house ownership onto somethign else.
The root data is indeed HMRC but it has been cleverly interpreted and presented for entirely political purposes.
That is why discernment is as necessary in the temporal as in the spiritual realm.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent Alert
This is way off track from my own OP, but the great advantage of taxing income, is that it is liquid, fungible, whereas land, Old Masters etc aren't. It's possible to own an asset but have no money with which to pay a tax charged on it. If you earn an income, unless you're paid in food, it comes in a form that you can pay a proportion of it in tax.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
The problem with income tax is that the rich find it very easy to avoid which is why, as any Conservative will tell you, there is little point in pushing it above 40p in the pound. Even at that comparatively low rate there is massive avoidance/evasion.
That's why I, personally, favour land value tax. It's impossible to take a house, a supermarket or a farm out of the UK. If it supresses the cost of land, great. There is no inherent reason why this should lead to an overall increase in taxation, it would just mean a shift in who pays it. (Actually I think there should be some increase, to pay down the debts created by the bankers, but that is another question.)
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
(and seeing the source I'd be mildly surprised if the lying little toerag was telling the truth)
ken, the source is HMRC if you care to actually look... and income tax was raised as the discussion moved of house ownership onto somethign else.
The root data is indeed HMRC but it has been cleverly interpreted and presented for entirely political purposes.
That is why discernment is as necessary in the temporal as in the spiritual realm.
Of course, it's political bias not plain facts because that would harm the narrative of lies of the left.
The original data is to be found on the HMRC website and on the national archives website, go do some research, but I'm sure that you will write the official figures of as politically interfered with as well...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I missing something, but is this latest proposal a demonstration that two important people don't understand GCSE Elementary Maths? Or are they hoping we are all too thick to notice? I said the same when it was abolished. It was the point when I lost all respect for the then Chancellor.
Suppose, to make the Maths easier, the bottom £2,000 of the standard 20p rate band is converted into a 10p rate band. Doesn't the Revenue get the same take simply by raising the tax threshold by £1,000? Isn't the effect on the poorest families exactly the same?
I think the greatest problems are the cliff edge between various benefits dropping out and taxes kicking in. They are too abrupt and do not allow for costs associated with work such as transport, clothes, child care etc. It is these that create poverty traps and the government has not done enough to make work pay. I wait to be convinced that a 10p tax band will accomplish this. Job seekers allowance only leaves a claimant with an extra £5 per week before taking almost a £ per £ earned. Too bad if the bus fare costs you more than that!
The cynic in me is looking to see where the chancellor is going to take even more way (cuts in other benefits, tax credits or services that make work possible like public transport etc. )- because everything that has been done is really about ‘saving money’. However it seems like the governments real policy is to make most of Britain poorer so that the corporate can be ‘more competitive’. The trouble is this seems to have locked us into a downward spiral.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
That's why I, personally, favour land value tax. It's impossible to take a house, a supermarket or a farm out of the UK. If it supresses the cost of land, great. There is no inherent reason why this should lead to an overall increase in taxation, it would just mean a shift in who pays it.
My Dad was always very much in favour of this. Do you know why it is rarely mentioned by politicians?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My Dad was always very much in favour of this. Do you know why it is rarely mentioned by politicians?
Two reasons, I think, both IMHO quite good ones.
The first is the one I mentioned above, that an asset isn't liquid. You can't really cut off a corner from an Old Master so as to pay the tax on it.
The second is more fundamental, though it's probably beyond the mental calibre of most politicians to understand this. It is that for a permanently viable revenue raising system, the state should be taking its regular harvest off income rather than capital - a share of the crop. If the state habitually shaves capital, the generative capacity of the populace shrinks. After 20 years, a 5% mansion tax means no mansion.
As far as a house or a farm that generates income is concerned, people do have to pay income tax on those. I think you've got to have fairly clever lawyers and accountants to get the income from a farm outside the scope of HMRC. Certainly, I don't recall any farmer I've met managing it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
