LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Well all that money you save calculating income taxDorset_Boy said:
Err, do you know when the last revaluation of residential properties for Council Tax took place Rick? Or how long it took?rick_chasey said:
Honest question how do you think they calculate council tax?Stevo_666 said:
Also hard to see how annual revaluations could be done on unlisted businesses for the self employed, or typically hard to value assets such as intellectual property.Dorset_Boy said:So every property in the country needs to be revalued on an annual basis?
commercial properties are supposed to be revalued every 5 years for rateable value and the Valuation Office can't cope with doing that.
That's made a wealth tax incredibly expensive to administer straight away.
then you have the issue of the couple who have 2 State Pensions, let's say £18,500 pa, but their property is valued at £500,000.
How do you propose they pay your wealth tax Rick?
I think you need to get out into the real world a little and see how people's incomes and wealth really match up, because your London centric FS bubble certainly isn't representative of the reality.
And for most people, forcing them to sell their main residence for something smaller to avoid getting stung is hardly practical. Especially for families and those on low incomes.
I suspect you were barely out of nappies.
Anyway how do other countries around the world do it?
Such a “no can’t be done” attitude.0 -
You do realise that for most people their incomes drop quite a bit when they retire?rick_chasey said:
What does a house do? It doesn’t add value.Dorset_Boy said:
People need somewhere to live Rick.rick_chasey said:Lads tying up your money in property is fine personal finance but in aggregate it is a monster waste of capital.
The wealth tax will make people put their money to work. So people would not have tied their money up in houses to begin with as it is unproductive
Home ownership makes far more sense than renting, particularly once you hit retirement.
Given the size of the DIY and property market, it's also pretty daft to suggest that home ownership is unproductive. Do you really think landlords would spend on those properties the same way as an owner occupier does?
It’s not a factory or a machine or anything that produces stuff of value. It just sits there.
And I don’t agree ownership is important when you retire.
On the contrary you have lots of people who live too frugally in their fully owned houses in their latter years when they could have sold it off, taken the money and paid rent.
Why else is equity release such a big deal?
Free the money from housing stock. Think how much you could charge the economy up by forcing it into productive investments!
Not having to pay rent in retirement is, for many retirees, the difference between poverty and having a semi-decent standard of living.
What rate of (guaranteed) return do you think these people would need on their investments to ensure their rent could be paid? What guaranteed rate of return is realistically available?
You don't deal with people of that age so I guess it's not surprising you don't understand the realities.
Equity release is a tiny market, though it is growing. It also really doesn't make much sense before the age of 70.1 -
High and unavoidable inheritance tax would have the same effect, wouldn't it? (As far as keeping cash tied up in houses.)1
-
The reply made me chuckle
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I love the idea that all the rich people are doing nothing with their money but sitting counting it
0 -
I have the same hatred for "trust fund Charlie’s" as I do for benefit scroungers - none.rick_chasey said:Honestly you lot if you had the same hatred for trust fund Charlie’s who don’t do work as you did for lifer benefits scrounges the world would be a better place.
Money sitting locked up houses doesn’t make the world go round. It’s a waste.
Sure it's natural to have an atavistic resentment of those who are richer than us: but what you need to do to advocate a wealth tax, or any other tax for that matter, is to demonstrate how it would make us all (apart from the filthy rich of course) better off.0 -
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else.0 -
They have a banding system and this does not get updated every year. This cuts down the work significantly.rick_chasey said:
Honest question how do you think they calculate council tax?Stevo_666 said:
Also hard to see how annual revaluations could be done on unlisted businesses for the self employed, or typically hard to value assets such as intellectual property.Dorset_Boy said:So every property in the country needs to be revalued on an annual basis?
commercial properties are supposed to be revalued every 5 years for rateable value and the Valuation Office can't cope with doing that.
That's made a wealth tax incredibly expensive to administer straight away.
then you have the issue of the couple who have 2 State Pensions, let's say £18,500 pa, but their property is valued at £500,000.
How do you propose they pay your wealth tax Rick?
I think you need to get out into the real world a little and see how people's incomes and wealth really match up, because your London centric FS bubble certainly isn't representative of the reality.
And for most people, forcing them to sell their main residence for something smaller to avoid getting stung is hardly practical. Especially for families and those on low incomes.0 -
Sounds like I need to get some long positions on stocks as this is the only thing that will rise from this plan. Normal people cannot go and make investments that easily that generate growth. They mainly generate growth by buying things they probably don't need.rick_chasey said:
What does a house do? It doesn’t add value.Dorset_Boy said:
People need somewhere to live Rick.rick_chasey said:Lads tying up your money in property is fine personal finance but in aggregate it is a monster waste of capital.
The wealth tax will make people put their money to work. So people would not have tied their money up in houses to begin with as it is unproductive
Home ownership makes far more sense than renting, particularly once you hit retirement.
Given the size of the DIY and property market, it's also pretty daft to suggest that home ownership is unproductive. Do you really think landlords would spend on those properties the same way as an owner occupier does?
It’s not a factory or a machine or anything that produces stuff of value. It just sits there.
And I don’t agree ownership is important when you retire.
On the contrary you have lots of people who live too frugally in their fully owned houses in their latter years when they could have sold it off, taken the money and paid rent.
Why else is equity release such a big deal?
Free the money from housing stock. Think how much you could charge the economy up by forcing it into productive investments!0 -
-
Well it would force more money back into the economy and incentives putting money to work over hoarding it.bompington said:
I have the same hatred for "trust fund Charlie’s" as I do for benefit scroungers - none.rick_chasey said:Honestly you lot if you had the same hatred for trust fund Charlie’s who don’t do work as you did for lifer benefits scrounges the world would be a better place.
Money sitting locked up houses doesn’t make the world go round. It’s a waste.
Sure it's natural to have an atavistic resentment of those who are richer than us: but what you need to do to advocate a wealth tax, or any other tax for that matter, is to demonstrate how it would make us all (apart from the filthy rich of course) better off.
It would also incentivise earning today over earning yesterday.
What does all of that mean? A better functioning economy with more efficient allocation - which everyone benefits from. It lifts the tide for everyone.
It would reduce levels of resentment as your wealth would be more proportional to your earnings and less about who you were born to - doubly so with my inheritance tax scenario.
You wouldn’t have as much of an us and them mentality as, over time, all unproductive wealth is eroded by tax so it becomes about what you’ve earned or how you put your money to work.
You would obviously have to engineer a way to handle pensions to encourage some kind of saving for old age without scuppering the whole idea - perhaps a fairly robust annuity situation.
0 -
Doesn't that example fall down on the basis that it's assuming the street vendor, taxi driver etc. have zero costs? If the street vendor uses the $10 where does he get the money to pay for his supplies, licences etc.? I think I understand the theory but that seems a particularly bad example.rick_chasey said:
Multiplier effect - SC accuses me of loving it hahapangolin said:
The reply made me chuckle0 -
Well he pays his suppliers who count that as income etc.Pross said:
Doesn't that example fall down on the basis that it's assuming the street vendor, taxi driver etc. have zero costs? If the street vendor uses the $10 where does he get the money to pay for his supplies, licences etc.? I think I understand the theory but that seems a particularly bad example.rick_chasey said:
Multiplier effect - SC accuses me of loving it hahapangolin said:
The reply made me chuckle
The multiplier effect is all about how many times an action in an economy impacts the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
Roughly a higher savings ratio means a lower multiplier.
Rich people have higher savings ratios and poor people have lower savings ratios (what difference does an extra £100 make to a billionaire vs a homeless person, to illustrate) so the argument goes to stimulate the economy you put more money in the pockets of the poor over the rich.
0 -
Based on a one off valuation done in the early 90s, not an annual exercise. Also how does that cover private businesses and IP?rick_chasey said:
Honest question how do you think they calculate council tax?Stevo_666 said:
Also hard to see how annual revaluations could be done on unlisted businesses for the self employed, or typically hard to value assets such as intellectual property.Dorset_Boy said:So every property in the country needs to be revalued on an annual basis?
commercial properties are supposed to be revalued every 5 years for rateable value and the Valuation Office can't cope with doing that.
That's made a wealth tax incredibly expensive to administer straight away.
then you have the issue of the couple who have 2 State Pensions, let's say £18,500 pa, but their property is valued at £500,000.
How do you propose they pay your wealth tax Rick?
I think you need to get out into the real world a little and see how people's incomes and wealth really match up, because your London centric FS bubble certainly isn't representative of the reality.
And for most people, forcing them to sell their main residence for something smaller to avoid getting stung is hardly practical. Especially for families and those on low incomes."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep but in that example the $10 was constantly being paid forward with none of it being paid back which is why I felt it was a bad analogy.rick_chasey said:
Well he pays his suppliers who count that as income etc.Pross said:
Doesn't that example fall down on the basis that it's assuming the street vendor, taxi driver etc. have zero costs? If the street vendor uses the $10 where does he get the money to pay for his supplies, licences etc.? I think I understand the theory but that seems a particularly bad example.rick_chasey said:
Multiplier effect - SC accuses me of loving it hahapangolin said:
The reply made me chuckle
The multiplier effect is all about how many times an action in an economy impacts the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
Roughly a higher savings ratio means a lower multiplier.
Rich people have higher savings ratios and poor people have lower savings ratios (what difference does an extra £100 make to a billionaire vs a homeless person, to illustrate) so the argument goes to stimulate the economy you put more money in the pockets of the poor over the rich.
I get the point and hopefully the poor person would have something worthwhile to show for the £100 but, to be cycnical, ultimately the £100 will end up in the hands of the rich person.0 -
It's nice theory but that's as far as it goes and most of us realise that.
In any event, if we all believe in 'Rickonomics' then tax rises are not needed as the country can just borrow whatever it likes as there is no cost or downside to that, right?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
i was hoping you did not see thatrick_chasey said:
Multiplier effect - SC accuses me of loving it hahapangolin said:
The reply made me chuckle1 -
It is amusing - and a good sweeping generalisation.bompington said:I love the idea that all the rich people are doing nothing with their money but sitting counting it
Maybe some of them are investing in say new businesses that create jobs and wealth? Kinda beats just taking taxpayers money and just giving it to people because they're more likely to spend it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
My 60 yr old was already in the lucky position of owning wealth when Rick's wealth tax kicked in but you are right the youngster on the road to riches would find his pension pot robbed of 5% every year and never get to his/her destinationjohn80 said:
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else.0 -
Dropping the mandatory annuity requirement was the reason many of my generation started their pensions in addition to the meagre work provided offerings. Ask two pensioners that roof their annuity out the day before and after 911 how they feel about the products.rick_chasey said:
Well it would force more money back into the economy and incentives putting money to work over hoarding it.bompington said:
I have the same hatred for "trust fund Charlie’s" as I do for benefit scroungers - none.rick_chasey said:Honestly you lot if you had the same hatred for trust fund Charlie’s who don’t do work as you did for lifer benefits scrounges the world would be a better place.
Money sitting locked up houses doesn’t make the world go round. It’s a waste.
Sure it's natural to have an atavistic resentment of those who are richer than us: but what you need to do to advocate a wealth tax, or any other tax for that matter, is to demonstrate how it would make us all (apart from the filthy rich of course) better off.
It would also incentivise earning today over earning yesterday.
What does all of that mean? A better functioning economy with more efficient allocation - which everyone benefits from. It lifts the tide for everyone.
It would reduce levels of resentment as your wealth would be more proportional to your earnings and less about who you were born to - doubly so with my inheritance tax scenario.
You wouldn’t have as much of an us and them mentality as, over time, all unproductive wealth is eroded by tax so it becomes about what you’ve earned or how you put your money to work.
You would obviously have to engineer a way to handle pensions to encourage some kind of saving for old age without scuppering the whole idea - perhaps a fairly robust annuity situation.0 -
Not sure Rick has thought of that one. Destroying wealth for all ages, not just 'undeserving' boomers.surrey_commuter said:
My 60 yr old was already in the lucky position of owning wealth when Rick's wealth tax kicked in but you are right the youngster on the road to riches would find his pension pot robbed of 5% every year and never get to his/her destinationjohn80 said:
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you think a tax on wealth “destroys wealth” you’re not understanding a whole host of concepts. The whole point is to change the incentives to create wealth and not hoard it.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure Rick has thought of that one. Destroying wealth for all ages, not just 'undeserving' boomers.surrey_commuter said:
My 60 yr old was already in the lucky position of owning wealth when Rick's wealth tax kicked in but you are right the youngster on the road to riches would find his pension pot robbed of 5% every year and never get to his/her destinationjohn80 said:
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else.
You’re both right to point out how to account for life after working and I imagine there are some fairly sensible steps to take - keeping pensions not included up to a certain amount, and tweaking the annuity market.
0 -
annuity market is screwed until your MMT diesrick_chasey said:
If you think a tax on wealth “destroys wealth” you’re not understanding a whole host of concepts. The whole point is to change the incentives to create wealth and not hoard it.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure Rick has thought of that one. Destroying wealth for all ages, not just 'undeserving' boomers.surrey_commuter said:
My 60 yr old was already in the lucky position of owning wealth when Rick's wealth tax kicked in but you are right the youngster on the road to riches would find his pension pot robbed of 5% every year and never get to his/her destinationjohn80 said:
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else.
You’re both right to point out how to account for life after working and I imagine there are some fairly sensible steps to take - keeping pensions not included up to a certain amount, and tweaking the annuity market.
just let people draw down
excluding pensions is quite a big compromise, what about cars and wine. Do you put your bottle of Tesco Claret on the form, what if you have 100 bottles and what if they are 15 years old from a single chateau in Bordeau? what about your Nissan micra are you including that, is it an asset or a means of transport, surely has to be categorised alongside a £1m Ferrari?
Much easier to ditch SDLT and double council tax - even stick a few extra bands on top.0 -
I probably understand them better than - for a start you seem to find it hard to understand human behaviour in these sorts of scenarios.rick_chasey said:
If you think a tax on wealth “destroys wealth” you’re not understanding a whole host of concepts. The whole point is to change the incentives to create wealth and not hoard it.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure Rick has thought of that one. Destroying wealth for all ages, not just 'undeserving' boomers.surrey_commuter said:
My 60 yr old was already in the lucky position of owning wealth when Rick's wealth tax kicked in but you are right the youngster on the road to riches would find his pension pot robbed of 5% every year and never get to his/her destinationjohn80 said:
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else.
You’re both right to point out how to account for life after working and I imagine there are some fairly sensible steps to take - keeping pensions not included up to a certain amount, and tweaking the annuity market.
Even if you twiddle with exempt amounts etc a lot of this will not change behaviour, apart from maybe incentivising people to impoverish themselves which will have obvious ramifications for later life or hard times.
You still haven't addressed my fundamental points above regarding the nature of such as tax. So I'll ask again.
And we already have one wealth tax - IHT. How much does that bring in?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just catching up with this. Must admit that I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that money invested in property is 'not doing anything'.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I think most of us are struggling with that rather 'unique' view.rjsterry said:Just catching up with this. Must admit that I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that money invested in property is 'not doing anything'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Forget all that - just borrow more. We've been assured that there are no downsides.surrey_commuter said:
annuity market is screwed until your MMT diesrick_chasey said:
If you think a tax on wealth “destroys wealth” you’re not understanding a whole host of concepts. The whole point is to change the incentives to create wealth and not hoard it.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure Rick has thought of that one. Destroying wealth for all ages, not just 'undeserving' boomers.surrey_commuter said:
My 60 yr old was already in the lucky position of owning wealth when Rick's wealth tax kicked in but you are right the youngster on the road to riches would find his pension pot robbed of 5% every year and never get to his/her destinationjohn80 said:
I think you have stepped into a fantasy land where people could afford this. The majority of the working population would have a negative paycheck unless your percentage was really really low as we have spent the last 20 years actively inflating typically held assets. Why would you bother owning asset classes or saving as that 60 year old would over 10-20 years at the end of their life end up with nothing assuming they could find someone to buy a percentage of the primary asset or they are homeless every year. I can imagine a lot of mortgage companies would be happy to pay 10% tax on the outstanding loan as technically they own some of the house. Who is valuing the assets every year.surrey_commuter said:
nope he pays the % on his total wealth each year (not just the increase) so the total value of his properties, pension and savings. To maximise the impact assume the bloke and his wife are 65 so have been investing wisely and living frugally for 50 years.john80 said:
How do you handle the guy on minimum wage that was astute enough to buy a Glasgow flat and keep it and now it is worth 3 times as much as his residential home? Do you charge him every year for a percentage of the estimated increase. Do you charge him when he sells it. He was also living frugally so put 10% of his minimal earnings into a pension fund for the last ten years. Does the government want some of that. You can take this argument all the way up the wage scales and it is only when you are at the obscenely rich will it not have a pretty significant affect on their finances and therefore their spending habits.rick_chasey said:
A well thought out wealth tax im all for.surrey_commuter said:
Not much detail there.rick_chasey said:One for you Stevo
How do you feel about a wealth tax? I was surprised to see they were lumping pensions in and that got me thinking about why not make it much broader. So on the grounds that £1k is worth having why not do 5% on £20k and up?
If I was creating a new system from scratch I would go heavy on wealth and light on income.
For me anyway you want to really disincentivise rentier behaviour but also encourage max competition.
I also like the idea that if you have one great year you don’t immediately get smacked.
I have made my views on inheritance tax already.
It is of course a deeply anti establishment by nature but it does mean you make it easy to generate some wealth but hard to hold onto masses without earning a lot.
I want to incentivise earnings not wealth.
I think this would only lead to a lot less saving, a lot less ownership of things deemed investments and a lot more money on living the good life for which the next generation have to pay for when he is in a home, incontinent with dementia. Have you got and financial interest in hookers and coke that you would like to disclose.
There must be a lot of 60 year olds in the SE worth a couple of million if including pension and home who might have to write a cheque for £100k each year.
This is why i suggest it applies to everybody so the masses are not voting for a tax on somebody else.
You’re both right to point out how to account for life after working and I imagine there are some fairly sensible steps to take - keeping pensions not included up to a certain amount, and tweaking the annuity market.
just let people draw down
excluding pensions is quite a big compromise, what about cars and wine. Do you put your bottle of Tesco Claret on the form, what if you have 100 bottles and what if they are 15 years old from a single chateau in Bordeau? what about your Nissan micra are you including that, is it an asset or a means of transport, surely has to be categorised alongside a £1m Ferrari?
Much easier to ditch SDLT and double council tax - even stick a few extra bands on top."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
All that would occur in this 'Rickonomics' fallacy is everything would quickly become personal debt.Stevo_666 said:It's nice theory but that's as far as it goes and most of us realise that.
In any event, if we all believe in 'Rickonomics' then tax rises are not needed as the country can just borrow whatever it likes as there is no cost or downside to that, right?
House - Interest only mortgage
Car(s) - Car loan or PCP
Holiday - Credit cards
All other spending - Some form of Credit
People would quickly work out that being loaded with debt would be the way to minimise the impact of get stung by a wealth tax and all income would be directed to servicing the debt. That is until a recession occurs and the whole pack of cards falls down.
It would make what happened in 2008 look like a speed bump...0 -
Europe (which we know is always right) mostly does not have wealth tax: even the French have scrapped it.
https://businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-tax-spain-norway-switzerland-belgium-2019-11?r=US&IR=T
"Most European governments eliminated the tax because it was problematic in design and enforcement, and France was the latest to scrap it in 2017. They often hit people with plenty of assets but little cash on hand to pay the taxman.
"They can be really difficult to administer and ensure even a moderate compliance rate," Daniel Bunn, the director of Global Projects at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, told Business Insider of the European wealth tax experience.
He added that it became difficult for governments to justify the high administrative cost of enforcement as the rich were able to move assets and capital out of the country into lower-taxed jurisdictions, often within Europe.
Instead, Bunn said, European countries did away with it and doubled down on enforcing income taxes among others.
All together, European wealth taxes generally brought in around 0.2% of GDP in revenues, a study from the Cato Institute noted."
So hard to administer, easy to avoid and raises very little in real life."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I've thought similar to Rick about money in property being dead money and argued the point with friends, not in the context on an argument about taxation though, just the absurdity of how much wealth is tied up in it. I would describe it as unproductive rather than 'not doing anything.'0
