Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

One way of looking at this is to ask whether taxing business owners at 99% would make any difference. If your answer is yes then keep reducing the % down until you reach the point of “don’t know”.
As it is behaviour you want to encourage then to me it instinctively feels like it should be less than PAYE.
Of course any attempt by the Govt to manipulate the economy will trigger the law of unintended consequences

rick_chasey

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Alternatively, if you think it's that important then lead by example and pay some more yourself.

I actually said "very wealthy".

If it was a choice, then it wouldn't really be a tax would it? That would be charity. Which is a different argument entirely. I disagree with the concept of gift aid and being able to offset charity contributions against tax.

But any increase in tax that is likely to make a difference would probably affect me.

OK then, define 'very wealthy'.

And then estimate how many there are to squeeze.

kingstongraham

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

morstar

https://taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/?fbclid=IwAR0K-hpMTPJmomGWgK9-E_dQd2DR1a90vM8d6wlTPE5_GB2kjN9nhBPlqyI

I neither accept these as fact or dismiss them as untrue as I know how data can be mis-represented and I really don't have time to get the figures myself to do my own analysis. But these do make an interesting read.
Quite obviously from a left wing source which doesn't automatically make them untrue. I thought I'd highlight that before somebody tries to discredit them based solely on that point.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a sector with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

https://taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/?fbclid=IwAR0K-hpMTPJmomGWgK9-E_dQd2DR1a90vM8d6wlTPE5_GB2kjN9nhBPlqyI

I neither accept these as fact or dismiss them as untrue as I know how data can be mis-represented and I really don't have time to get the figures myself to do my own analysis. But these do make an interesting read.
Quite obviously from a left wing source which doesn't automatically make them untrue. I thought I'd highlight that before somebody tries to discredit them based solely on that point.

Clearly from a heavily biased source as you say so to be interpreted accordingly. However in good old leftie tradition it is long and waffling so care to sum on here up the point you are trying to make with it?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a secor with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

If the population is increasing, but more importantly, ageing, then I'm not sure it's that much of a choice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-42572110

Real terms spending on everything other than health and social protection has been flat or falling for 10 years anyway. Which might be part of the reason behind the current spending plans of Labour and the Tories. Voters have noticed.




Taking a longer view, public spending has been oscillating around 40% of GDP since the late '40s. We're currently at the bottom of a trough and due an upswing.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

One way of looking at this is to ask whether taxing business owners at 99% would make any difference. If your answer is yes then keep reducing the % down until you reach the point of “don’t know”.
As it is behaviour you want to encourage then to me it instinctively feels like it should be less than PAYE.
Of course any attempt by the Govt to manipulate the economy will trigger the law of unintended consequences

Agree.

There is still the slightly naive assumption on here that jacking up the rates automatically increases tax revenues -short term long term. As mentioned above, there is evidence of how it can be counterproductive. And the competition between large number of countries to attract investment by offering competitive tax regimes suggests that the opposite is often the case in reality, The downward trend in corporate tax rates globally is well known - even the French are at it...

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a sector with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

Given the ageing population I'm not sure how much choice we have about increasing spending on health unless you have something more drastic in mind.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-42572110

In any case, real terms spending on everything except health and social protection has been flat or falling for ten years and I think voters may have noticed.



Taking a longer view, public spending has oscillated around 40% of GDP for the last 75 years. We're at the bottom of a trough at the moment so a rise is not unexpected.

Stevo_666

I'm talking about overall spending.

Remember the level of debt we have - which reflects how much we have cumulatively overseen compared to tax income etc over the years. Sensible to keep managing that in the longer term.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a sector with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

I'm not confusing the two, you asked what very wealthy means. I specifically excluded the home in my answer.

Because income and wealth are not the same, I asked the question about the best way to raise taxes - as a thought experiment, not asking whether you think there is a need for more spending, because I already know the answer to that.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a sector with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

I'm not confusing the two, you asked what very wealthy means. I specifically excluded the home in my answer.

Because income and wealth are not the same, I asked the question about the best way to raise taxes - as a thought experiment, not asking whether you think there is a need for more spending, because I already know the answer to that.

You think you know the answer but that's just your opinion.

Whether or not a house is excluded, you are still defining wealth based on assets rather than income. Which is generally not how tax generally works (unless Labour or Lib Dems introduce french style wealth taxes).

kingstongraham

Your previous answer was "I think we pay enough already". Wealth tax better than income tax?

I suppose that wealthy depends on both income and assets. If you are constantly spending all your loads of money you earn every year, you're rich but not in assets.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

I would be very surprised is Govt revenue declined when top rate fell to 45%. This is because everybody knew it was short term so deferred income.

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

https://taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/?fbclid=IwAR0K-hpMTPJmomGWgK9-E_dQd2DR1a90vM8d6wlTPE5_GB2kjN9nhBPlqyI

I neither accept these as fact or dismiss them as untrue as I know how data can be mis-represented and I really don't have time to get the figures myself to do my own analysis. But these do make an interesting read.
Quite obviously from a left wing source which doesn't automatically make them untrue. I thought I'd highlight that before somebody tries to discredit them based solely on that point.

Clearly from a heavily biased source as you say so to be interpreted accordingly. However in good old leftie tradition it is long and waffling so care to sum on here up the point you are trying to make with it?

I am not trying to make any point, the article is. I think it is an interesting point that is made if the analysis stands up to scrutiny.

Essentially, the article tries to prove that the idea of the tories being the party of fiscal responsibility is wrong on both an absolute and a relative scale. They are running up more debt than labour and with fewer beneficiaries. Feel free to disprove the facts and assumptions made.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

I would be very surprised is Govt revenue declined when top rate fell to 45%. This is because everybody knew it was short term so deferred income.

I don't believe it did fall as Rick claimed. I'd like to see some evidence.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

Point 1: evidence? However if we take your claim at face value then the tax take stayed flat when the rate went to 50% but declined when it went to 45%. However the rate pre 2010 was 40%, so that means that a 45% rate yielded less than a 40% rate. Good case to cut to 40% then.

Point 2: All we know is that the rate went down and the take went up. That could not be accounted for by economic growth alone. Less incentive to mitigate tax when the rate is lower is one obvious explanation.

As for maximising government revenues, politicians have a tendency to justify their empires and make themselves popular by spending, so naturally have a tendency to want to tax more. Which means that they are likely to be overtaxing taxpayers. Which is why I am in demand.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

https://taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/?fbclid=IwAR0K-hpMTPJmomGWgK9-E_dQd2DR1a90vM8d6wlTPE5_GB2kjN9nhBPlqyI

I neither accept these as fact or dismiss them as untrue as I know how data can be mis-represented and I really don't have time to get the figures myself to do my own analysis. But these do make an interesting read.
Quite obviously from a left wing source which doesn't automatically make them untrue. I thought I'd highlight that before somebody tries to discredit them based solely on that point.

Clearly from a heavily biased source as you say so to be interpreted accordingly. However in good old leftie tradition it is long and waffling so care to sum on here up the point you are trying to make with it?

I am not trying to make any point, the article is. I think it is an interesting point that is made if the analysis stands up to scrutiny.

Essentially, the article tries to prove that the idea of the tories being the party of fiscal responsibility is wrong on both an absolute and a relative scale. They are running up more debt than labour and with fewer beneficiaries. Feel free to disprove the facts and assumptions made.

If your not making any point then there's nothing for me to rebutt.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

Point 1: evidence? However if we take your claim at face value then the tax take stayed flat when the rate went to 50% but declined when it went to 45%. However the rate pre 2010 was 40%, so that means that a 45% rate yielded less than a 40% rate. Good case to cut to 40% then.

Point 2: All we know is that the rate went down and the take went up. That could not be accounted for by economic growth alone. Why not? It strikes me that both 1 and 2 are single data points and neither prove nor disprove anything on their own. Less incentive to mitigate tax when the rate is lower is one obvious explanation.

As for maximising government revenues, politicians have a tendency to justify their empires and make themselves popular by spending, so naturally have a tendency to want to tax more. On the contrary, while the first bit is correct, they will often go out of their way to insist that it won't cost anyone any more. "...Will be funded from existing budgets through efficiency savings" (😂) or if that isn't tenable, it will be paid by 'someone else' who happens to be whipping boy of the week. Which means that they are likely to be overtaxing taxpayers. Which is why I am in demand.

The threshold of what constitutes 'overtaxing' is pretty subjective.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a sector with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

I'm not confusing the two, you asked what very wealthy means. I specifically excluded the home in my answer.

Because income and wealth are not the same, I asked the question about the best way to raise taxes - as a thought experiment, not asking whether you think there is a need for more spending, because I already know the answer to that.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

Point 1: evidence? However if we take your claim at face value then the tax take stayed flat when the rate went to 50% but declined when it went to 45%. However the rate pre 2010 was 40%, so that means that a 45% rate yielded less than a 40% rate. Good case to cut to 40% then.

Point 2: All we know is that the rate went down and the take went up. That could not be accounted for by economic growth alone. Why not? Mind you, I'm not sure either points 1 or 2 prove or disprove anything on their own. Less incentive to mitigate tax when the rate is lower is one obvious explanation.

As for maximising government revenues, politicians have a tendency to justify their empires and make themselves popular by spending, so naturally have a tendency to want to tax more. I'd agree with the first bit but politicians usually go to great lengths to convince the public that their latest idea will not cost anything; will be funded out of existing budgets through efficiency savings (😂); will be funded by alleviating some other expenditure; or if none of those are tenable then the additional tax burden will be paid by "someone else" - whoever is the current pariah/whipping boy of the week. Which means that they are likely to be overtaxing taxpayers. Which is why I am in demand.

Is "overtaxed" something measurable or just a subjective thing?

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

"Very wealthy" means having a great deal of money or assets. Not thought much about a number, but a million in assets excluding your home still makes you seriously rich. Wikipedia reckons there's about half a million of them.

As a tax expert, if it was a policy imperative to raise more money through taxes (either for spending or deficit reduction), where would you suggest it be raised from?

I think you are confusing asset values with income. It is entirely possible that a pensioner living in the house they bought decades back somewhere in say the South East and worked in a sector with a decent workplace pension could fit into your definition without having a great deal of income.

As a tax expert, I think we pay enough already so there is no great imperative. The shocking alternative is to not assume that we need to always be increasing public spending.

I'm not confusing the two, you asked what very wealthy means. I specifically excluded the home in my answer.

Because income and wealth are not the same, I asked the question about the best way to raise taxes - as a thought experiment, not asking whether you think there is a need for more spending, because I already know the answer to that.

Broad brush stroke answer is to simplify things in the Govt's favour - remove tax breaks.

Not sure about a wealth tax but would be in favour of reviewing stamp duty and council tax. I would reduce SDLT to close to a flat rate of a couple of percent but it would be on absolutely every property transaction. An equivalent of council tax would go up significantly.

Longshot

surrey_commuter said:

Not sure about a wealth tax but would be in favour of reviewing stamp duty and council tax. I would reduce SDLT to close to a flat rate of a couple of percent but it would be on absolutely every property transaction. An equivalent of council tax would go up significantly.

SDLT really does need reducing to a more sensible level. I have no real issue with the current thresholds though - we need to do as much as possible to help true first time buyers.

As for Council Tax, I would prefer to see, rather than a blanket rise, a regular revaluation as was originally intended and as is adopted with business rates. At least that way the comparative values are more in line with current market trends. There's been a lot of disparate movement in prices since 1991. Regular revaluations don't need to cost much - it can be done by computer modelling.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What evidence is there to suggest we are already on the downward slope of the laffer curve?

A couple of examples:
- The last HMRC survey showing that the increase of the top income tax rate to 50% by the last Labour administration yielded pretty much nothing.
- The increase in the corporate tax revenues over the last while the CT rate has been declining.

What evidence is there to suggest that we are not?

So point one, if it’s correct, means we are at the top. I read that the Govt revs dropped around £1bn net after moving from 50% to 45%.

On point two; it’s more complicated than than in that if overall earnings are going up more than the cut they will continue to go up. That may be because of the tax rate but correlation is not causation by any stretch. For all we know govt revenues would have been even higher had the tax rate been higher.

I would imagine we are roughly at the inflexion anyway and your arguments for tax are more driven by personal preference and political ideology than optimising govt revenues.

Point 1: evidence? However if we take your claim at face value then the tax take stayed flat when the rate went to 50% but declined when it went to 45%. However the rate pre 2010 was 40%, so that means that a 45% rate yielded less than a 40% rate. Good case to cut to 40% then.

Point 2: All we know is that the rate went down and the take went up. That could not be accounted for by economic growth alone. Why not? It strikes me that both 1 and 2 are single data points and neither prove nor disprove anything on their own. Less incentive to mitigate tax when the rate is lower is one obvious explanation.

As for maximising government revenues, politicians have a tendency to justify their empires and make themselves popular by spending, so naturally have a tendency to want to tax more. On the contrary, while the first bit is correct, they will often go out of their way to insist that it won't cost anyone any more. "...Will be funded from existing budgets through efficiency savings" (😂) or if that isn't tenable, it will be paid by 'someone else' who happens to be whipping boy of the week. Which means that they are likely to be overtaxing taxpayers. Which is why I am in demand.

The threshold of what constitutes 'overtaxing' is pretty subjective.

It is subjective, but human nature being what it is and knowing what we do of politicians generally, there's a fair bit of truth in it. If the general impression was that we weren't being overtaxed, I'd probably be in a different line of work.

kingstongraham

Do you think anyone is "undertaxed"?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Do you think anyone is "undertaxed"?

There are places where that's possible.

kingstongraham

In the UK?