Sounds reasonable to me.

[fillyboy]

Although I won't hold my breath.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...ge-says-IMF-global-debts-soar.html?mrn_rm=rta

The wealthy should pay higher taxes to help deal with a Covid borrowing binge that has pushed global debts to a record £64 trillion, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday.

The Washington-based watchdog said the cost of protecting households, jobs and businesses has climbed to a 'staggering' £9 trillion, blowing a huge hole in the public finances of countries around the world.

The IMF said global debt has swelled to 100 per cent of world's entire annual output – or around £64 trillion – as a result of the crisis, and it set to spiral in the coming years.

The watchdog's head of fiscal policy Vitor Gaspar said officials should ultimately 'adopt measures to improve tax compliance and consider higher taxes for the more affluent groups and highly profitable firms'.

He added: 'The ensuing revenues would help pay for critical services, such as health and social safety nets, during a crisis that has disproportionately hurt the poorer segments of society.'

 

[noseall]

The people the likes of Hate despise will pay dearly. Our young will pay and the super rich will just become mega rich, whilst fat smug old retirees will carry on smirking and deriding young people.

 

[Lower]

Problem with that is, what is wealthy?

People earning 20k per year think that people earning £50k per year are wealthy. People earning £50k per year think that people earning £100k per year are wealthy. People earning £100k per year think that people earning £200k are wealthy etc etc.

Earning £100k per year is a decent wage, but up until you get to the point that you earn so much you just can't spend all your money, people tend to balance their outgoings to their income.

So, someone earning £100k will probably have a much better house than someone earning £50k, but will probably have much higher outgoings in terms of mortgage etc and won't feel wealthy. So if you tax the £100k person even more disproportionally than tax is weighted already, the £100k income person who on paper is much more wealthy than someone earning £50k feels they are being hit hard.

At what income are you truly wealthy in the UK?

 

[JohnD]

You said "wealth" but then you started talking about earnings.

We can reasonably say that a person on median earnings is average.

And a person below is a lower earner

And a person above is a higher earner.

Doubtless a person on ten times median earnings is a high earner.

Equally, we can say that a person with median wealth is not wealthy.

A person with ten times that, doubtless is.

Opinions may differ over whether "wealthy" starts at double median wealth, or some other figure.

There is no difficulty at all in deciding who has a "higher income."

Income is not necessarily "earnings."

 

[JohnD]

Here you are.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018#:~:text=Median total household wealth in Great Britain in April 2016,south and east of England.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2019#:~:text=Median household disposable income in,Living Costs and Food Survey.

As I've mentioned before, most wealth is held in Property and Private Pensions.

 

[Notch7]

people tend to balance their outgoings to their income

Sadly the people at bottom do that and have to choose between eating or heating. Or feeding children or adults.

Those peoples incomes is less than they need for the basics, they can't afford more tax.


I understand what you are saying in terms of higher incomes, the tax rules change created big financial worries for doctors, many who faced big tax bills, many had to remortgage.

 

[Lower]

You said "wealth" but then you started talking about income.

We can reasonably say that a person on median earnings is average.

And a person below is a lower earner

And a person above is a higher earner.

Doubtless a person on ten times median earnings is a high earner.

Equally, we can say that a person with median wealth is not wealthy.

A person with ten times that, doubtless is.

Opinions may differ over whether "wealthy" starts at double median wealth, or some other figure.

I deliberately referred to income to make the point that people often assume high income means wealthy and most tax is income based.

If we are to tax the wealthy, how do you define wealthy and how would you do it?

Income seems a fair method, because you have 'wealthy' people who are asset rich but cash poor, eg a farmer, who if taxed on assets would have to erode the assets pay the tax. But then you have people who are asset rich that produces a high income but they are able to hide their income in other assets.

 

[JohnD]

most tax is income based

Almost as if the tax system was designed to favour the wealthy.

 

[Lower]

Sadly the people at bottom do that and have to choose between eating or heating. Or feeding children or adults.

Those peoples incomes is less than they need for the basics, they can't afford more tax.


I understand what you are saying in terms of higher incomes, the tax rules change created big financial worries for doctors, many who faced big tax bills, many had to remortgage.

I think most people agree that the most wealthy people or those with the biggest incomes should pick up the greatest tax burden, but it's an interesting debate as to where the line should be drawn above which you are wealthy.

 

[JohnD]

If we are to tax the wealthy, how do you define wealthy and how would you do it?

I would certainly start by finding out where most wealth is held.

That has already been done.

Then I would consider if that wealth has been hidden, or is easy to find.

That has already been done.

Then I would consider if the owners of such wealth have sufficient power and influence to prevent it being taxed.

That has already been done.

Then I would look for a potential government willing and able to address the need.

That has already been done.

Then I would vote it into power.

That has not recently been done.

 

[Lower]

Almost as if the tax system was designed to favour the wealthy.

I think any tax system will be open to avoidance by they wealthy as they have the funds to pay expensive tax avoidance specialists and the liquidity to squirrel funds away for the long term.

 

[Lower]

I would certainly start by finding out where most wealth is held.

That has already been done.

Then I would consider if that wealth has been hidden, or is easy to find.

That has already been done.

Then I would consider if the owners of such wealth have sufficient power and influence to prevent it being taxed.

That has already been done.

Then I would look for a potential government willing and able to address the need.

That has already been done.

Then I would vote it into power.

That has not recently been done.

Ignoring the politics (i'm specifically not looking to get into a political sparring match), what tax system would you use?

 

[Ihavenojob]

Who is the money owed to ?

 

[Notch7]

Mottie has had a freebie, the tax man should be knocking on his door first

 

[Mottie]

Mottie has had a freebie, the tax man should be knocking on his door first

Define Freebie?

What you and the likes of ellie simply cant get into your thick heads is that in education, to survive you have to charge for 52 weeks of the year to be able to meet all your outgoings but you are only working for 36 weeks of the year. Yes, I commented once that I would be receiving furlough money (freebies?) when I'm not normally working and ellie pounced on it like a dog on a bone and he seems unable to let go but this year I did not have the students to build up that reserve that covers Easter, May half term and the summer break. This year I have invoiced just £2,555 in February. That's it. My total income this year so far. Luckily for me I have personal savings. I also have a healthy war chest of reserves that I have built up in the company account for a rainy day such as we are experiencing. I'm not complaining, I could have run for over a year on those reserves but I've hardly touched those due to the help I have had from the government. How do you think the teachers and lecturers as well as the educational establishments that teach your children survive during the school breaks? Do they stop paying rent, rates, electricity, water, heating, phone, staff wages, employers costs, accountancy, repairs to the buildings, insurances, training, compliance with awarding bodies etc etc? Get a brain or try and run a business in education and you'll soon find out.