Yes, there is a dribble of money coming down to pay for either menial jobs or a very, very few artisanal jobs (decorating a yacht perhaps). But here’s another idea - tax them high and use the money to pay for high quality doctors, nurses, elderly care. More people employed in decent paid (should be) and rewarding jobs. The uber-rich can still afford to decorate their yacht.
All good … but why the need for tax efficiency? If this investing of wealth will generate more wealth (and jobs, hurrah) then surely that extra wealth (or a majority percentage of it) is reward enough? Plus the thing the rich seem to have forgotten - investing in their country.
Nothing in your post about Titus Salt or Joseph Rowntree Lincs?
And don’t you think people like Graham Kirkham deserve their wealth?
What would be the incentive to build a business without the rewards?
Over taxing the wealthy just stifles the economy and creates poverty and people needing benefits.
This is why the western world is so successful.
there’s a balance and it’s important to use a taxation carrot rather than a taxation stick to encourage investment into UK industry. I don’t understand why anyone would want to bring their wealth to the UK if 90% of that wealth will be taxed. A different approach is needed. Industrialists with a vision to improve our society.
There is not one correct sentence in your post.
I did not refer to long dead industrialists because my comments were about this century, not about two centuries ago. Why on earth would I go back to another age?
When I did I say that anyone does not deserve their wealth? When did I say that I wanted to make rich people poor? Rather than make things up that you think I meant to say could you respond to what I actually posted? Or seek clarification if you suddenly think of something different.
When did I say that I wanted to remove the ability to gain wealth from building a business? Again, you are putting your fiction onto my posts.
When did I say over tax the rich. I said pay as much in percentage as everyone else. And why would a bit more tax on the rich stifle an economy? Have Scandinavian economies been stifled over the decades?
Lastly, the western world is not so successful. That is the point.
If the western world was unsuccessful we would not have so many risking life and limb to get here.
The biggest problem in Britain in the 1970s was down to high taxes and a lack of internal and external competition. As markets were freed up and the tax burden substantially lowered, the economy started to thrive. With freedom comes risk and that’s the balance you need to manage. More intelligent and responsive taxation is required. But not taxation that stifles investment inwards because we want to be host to as many company headquarters as possible and our economy must be as stable and well regulated as possible to make that happen.
Trussonomics was about as bad as it ever gets, but the current lot are just scaring everyone off. Rich individuals are leaving in droves and we want them to spend their money here and not abroad.
The western world might be better than many third world countries but that is not the point. The western world is not successful for the majority of people and the wealth gulf, the success gulf is getting bigger. There is an inherent problem with our current model that fails the majority of people and abnormally rewards the minority. That is not “so successful”.
Your comparison of high tax levels in the 70’s is not useful. This was primarily high income tax at high earnings levels. That is not a tax on wealth or assets. The UK’s poor competitiveness at that time was not born from the income tax policy - but rather other industrial issues, post war repayment & rebuilding challenges and the long shadow of empire-reliance issues. Oh and the OPEC oil price hikes of the early 70’s. Linking problems just to income tax is wrong.
There is no evidence that personal tax cuts actually make the economy thrive. Equally there is evidence that cutting corporation tax simply means companies provide greater payback for investors. Other factors are required before companies switch to more investment.
But I fully agree with your comments about intelligent taxation to encourage investment - and stable well regulated growth.
Scotland has now become a highly sought after country to move to –
‘‘Scots butcher creates ‘best black pudding in the UK’ by tweaking World War II recipe’’
His victory helps put Arbroath on the culinary map for a reason other than the world-famous Smokies. Black puddings were introduced to Scotland from England and France, according to Ms Bennett, making it an extra special achievement to beat English butchers.
He said: "This is just amazing – overwhelming. To be judged as making the best black pudding in the whole of the UK is such an honour. We faced some amazing talent from the rest of the country and came out tops – that’s just fantastic.
"Black Pudding competitions are always fiercely fought events among our butchers and the UK title was the one they all wanted to win – especially as it’s the first ever champions’ showdown of its type. Scotland fielded a really strong team of regional and national champions and DH Robertson’s win underpins the belief that our small producers of high-quality food can triumph at UK level against the fiercest competition.
In Latin America from speaking to countless here who fled left or right dictators , REGARDLESS of party you will get a corrupt dictator which is another reason why cartels appeal to so many .
A woman from Colombia told me some years back that during the time of FARC her family had a farm .
During the day the Army would come steal chickens , at night the FARC Guerillas would come steal chickens .
If she complained to the government about the Army she would be called a FARC sympathizer and arrested , disappear ( killed in prison ) , if they said anything to the Guerillas they would be shot right there and that is pretty much the governments there .
There are exceptions like Costa Rica though expensive as can be now .
This is made up economics created to provide a tissue of credibility for Reagan’s tax cuts. It is not based on anything tangible and ignores the complexities of actual tax regimes. Just chuck it in the bin…
The 70’s did not just have high income tax but other taxes and restrictions on the markets. Opec didnt just upset our economy. A blanket tax hike has never led to higher growth or a better distribution of wealth because the market adjusts accordingly. A free for all is also not the answer. Incremental changes and tweaks are required. But each government wants to make its m ark regardless of the impact on ordinary people
Exactly. Eviscerating The toxic chalices inherited.
Which like or loth. Tackles each. With the **“Transparency”**strong text Of Plain, readily understood. English. That replaces years of Double Entendre.
Talking the talk. Fearful of Walking The Walk.
You used the phrase “tax them high”? You didn’t give much more detail than that. Again the term “wealth tax” doesn’t give much detail. Someone should replace the term with “success tax”.
The sorts of things being proposed by the loo-ney tunes version of labour we currently have will send the property market into nosedive if they are ever implemented. It could seriously deflate many properties and lead to swathes of negative equity. Combined with the changes in rental laws this could end with huge numbers of landlords withdrawing from the market. The combination of both policies is disaster dynamite.
True, fair point, I did say that the wealthy need to be highly taxed. My clarification is that “highly” should be “as high as ordinary people” in terms of percentage.
Wealth tax absolutely should not be called anything else. Certainly not anything that infers tax on achievement, effort, and winning. What about inherited wealth - is that someone gaining wealth through striving hard and succeeding? What about wealth passively gained from sitting on a house that goes from £500k to £3m over the thirty years someone lives there - is that success through hard work? What about putting your millions into a hedge fund so they can rip of everyone else and you gain massively - is that success? Its best to call it wealth tax.
