The UK tax system is a con | Economics | New Statesman 

Taxes * Income Tax * Capital Gains Tax * National Insurance * VAT * Council Tax * Corporation Tax * Dividend Tax * Bank payroll Tax * Petroleum Revenue Tax * Fuel Duties * Vehicle Tax - VED * SORN - Vehicles parked off road * Vehicle Registration * Vehicle MOT * Inheritance Tax * Stamp Duty * Tobacco Duties * Spirits Duties * Beer Duties * Wines Duties * Cider Duties * Betting & Gaming Duties * Air Passenger Duty * Insurance Premium Tax * Landfill Tax * Climate Change Levy * Aggregates Tax * Congestion Charge * ULEZ Stealth Taxes * Income Tax Threshold Freezes * Personal Savings Interest Threshold * Lifetime Allowance on Pensions * Parking Fines * Speeding Fines * Box Junction Fines * LTN Fines * AI Cameras.

Where does it say in law that you have to pay it please

I left during the thatcher years , came to Canada and never looked back

Where we going i’m coming with you.

Bingo-that really is the answer history tells us this-Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire-excessive taxes eventually kill your country bc wealthy can leave so economy of country falls

Forget Canada and their stupid Trudeau. Canadians are moving to America. We’d love to show you what financial freedom looks like.

You wouldn't want to move to New Zealand by any chance? If you do things are arguably a lot worse. We have become locked into Neoliberalism since 1984 and one of the parties (the ACT Party) was born out of the ashes of a betraying Labour Party that preceded it and we had an even worse government that followed - a National government with Ruth Richardson as Finance Minister where neoliberalism was expressed in an even more extreme and cruel way. She was so awful that not even Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, could stomach her any longer and sacked her. This is when our society became really unequal, but we had a voting system (MMP) that locked in a situation of political timidity that panders to the middle, swinging voters so nothing ever gets done, except for the benefit of the rich and so-called middle voters whose interests are purely for themselves and what they can get out of the government's so-called promises. The latest government has a National prime minister who was CEO of Air New Zealand and wants to run the government along corporate lines. National has two coalition partners who claim to have a mandate for their vile policies, including trashing the environment and destroying what's left of out natural biodiversity for so-called development projects (chosen by three undemocratic ministers) including mining, and more roads at the expense of rail, coastal shipping, cycling and walking - all at the expense of managing CO2 emissions and consequent global warming. They're also taking an axe to the health system, social welfare, all for protecting the interests of the wealthy. If they have a plan for anything, they haven't communicated it to long-suffering New Zealanders. They're New Zealand's answer to Boeing, but we can only hope that either they develop some sense and compassion or they're voted out as a one-term government. The two coalition partners (ACT and New Zealand First) claim to have been given a mandate to put forward their insane and insulting policies that retraumatises Maori in a racist and neo-colonial fit of pique by the ACT leader, but, between them, they only got around 17% of the vote, compared with the more left wing Green Party that got over 13% alone. Their claim to have a mandate is hardly credible and they are the tail of a very small chihuahua wagging a large St Bernard, nevertheless they hold the balance of power. All three coalition partners are New Zealand's political answer to Boeing and just as incompetent and, dare I say, corrupt. It is hard to believe that the British Tories are any worse than what we have here, but hearing Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg speak I'm hardly filled with confidence. It seems as if it's Prince Andrew running the country and determining policy.

Ir35 destroyed a lot of workers. Tax is 2 high.. not worth working, let others pay the tax for benefits.. everyone should do it, make life a lot less stressful.

Don't forget trusts and offshoring, which is where most of the country's hidden wealth and corruption, centered in the City of London, right under our very noses.

It's true. Work is taxed much more highly compared to income from property.

The tax burden is increasing for everyone. Business owners can pay as much as 60% tax. We need to stop pointing fingers and thinking the grass is always greener and start holding the government to account. It wouldn’t be as bad if the taxes were spent wisely, I would suggest much of it is wasted.

@@johntbaxter Actually no. When I was working my marginal tax rate was 48%. Now that I live of capital gains it's 10% when I sell assets.

"Finally waking up", what have they been doing to date to just be waking up? Partying? Pathetic..🙄

Sounds like bunch of populistic leftie propoganda. Wealth tax is what it is. You'll try to tax these people with higher taxes they'll move the money out and you'll get nothing. For them it's easier to move capital then for regular people. Many have tried and failed. There has to be another solution than take from rich give to the poor. Never worked and never will.

Great comment more and more citizens of the U.K. are understanding how deeply corrupt our politicians are. Slowly but surely more of the corruption will be exposed

@@nyakwarObat😂😂 The tax scheme is as old as the hills.

And politicians are all corrupt. All the decent people are killed and murdered.

Not to mention, when you earn over £50k a year, you are considered to be "rich," and half of everything over that goes to the government. Meanwhile, buying a modest house in London would cost you £600k minimum.

It demotivates work and actually encourages people to go on the dole.

You have hit the mail on the head. Investing in production, through company shares has a level of risk which is far greater than teh risk involved in owning property. So house prices rise, benefiting existing owners, and companies find themselves borrowing at terms which are difficult to pay.

Harry Lambert suggests we take money from those who have acquired more and give it to those have less. Who would work harder knowing they will have to hand it over to those that work less?

@@arron1906 If I have interpreted your point correctly, it depends on how it's acquired and then depends on where it goes. If it's simply tax the rich more and then hand it out in 'out of work' benefits then i agree, it stops aspiration of those who strive as they climb into greater wealth. If you tax capital gains the same as you would income, then invest that into proper healthcare, education, transport and improving deprived areas then it creates more options for those less well off to become strivers themselves. The current tax situation perpetuates inequality of choice and options available. Society can't help those who won't help themselves, but it should at least provide help to those who choose to do so. I can't see the current system doing that and we need money to help them.

Agree 👍🏼

nothing wrong with having a small business. everynoe nowadays wants to own the world ;)

It’s a sell out country. Chaos/ civil turmoil shortly

Do what other corporations do - take on lots of debt so you in theory have zero profits whilst paying yourself big dividends.

@@PazLeBonno not everyone wants to “own the world”. Not even the top 10% want to own the world. You only need an income of £60k to be in the top 10%. And the top 1% only earn £173k per year. Sounds a lot I know, and I wish that was me… but even that is not a tremendous amount of money. No it’s only about one or two dozen people in total who really want to “own the world”. Most people just want to own a decent home, have a nice car, go on holiday every year and be able to retire without worrying. The top 1% are still just small fry’s.

I don't regret the numerous financial mistakes I've made in the past since I've learnt from them. But the biggest one was planning my finances without consulting with a licensed financial counsel.

Indeed, I did make use of a financial counselor. As I get closer to retirement, their advice has been really helpful. I thought compound interest on index funds wouldn't be sufficient because I started late. It's amusing how I've done better than colleagues who have more years of investment experience. I've profited more than $886k tax free.

@@maryHenokNft Please who is the consultant that assists you with your investment and if you don't mind, how do I get in touch with them?

Thanks for the advice. The search for your coach was simple. I investigated her well before using her services. Considering her résumé, she appears competent.

Shut up bot

The issue is where did the money flow? The video suggests just the asset rich got wealthier.

Legalise and tax cannabis. Less for police to deal with, and more tax income. Spend it all on renewable generation to reduce energy costs

To be fair my person opinion is that if you are an adult you should be able to put whatever you want in your own body and we should be legalizing and taxing drugs because all drug criminalization does is create a revenue stream for criminals, costs police time and tax payer money locking people away, and I mean all drugs. This would need to come with labelling to be like this can cause X, Y and Z and for drugs that do cause aggression-which I would like to point out alcohol is worse than most illicit drugs when it comes to that-a special that this drug is known to cause excess aggressive tendencies and that if you commit a violent crime while under it's influence you will be subject to forced rehab and a longer jail sentence. This is not to actually stop people committing violent crimes while under the influence, it's cautionary so that people are less likely to take it in the first place and if they do they take precessions so they can't hurt anyone else before they take it. Also you would be taking a chunk of that tax money from the sale of drugs and putting it into rehabilitation clinics and public awareness of drugs and legalization has been shown to decrease the rate at which people take drugs, almost eliminate overdosing, cutting off a funding source for organized crime and the rest of the supply chain for the illicit production and distribution of illegal drugs and putting it in the hands of people above board which will bluster the economy. There is nothing but up sides for legalization as long as you enable good quality treatment for addiction.

HSBC is people's banks

My energy company sends me a bill which say that all of the energy I use is from 100% renewable sources, but it is no cheaper than anyone else’s.

What's with the hatred of lawyers? All they do is try to make sure their clients are treated impartially in line with the laws of the land. Property lawyers, family lawyers, public defence defence lawyers....

cool

It's very obvious why they don't do this. Educating people about taxes would do nothing to maintain the status quo

That’s why Labour are ruling it out. They aren’t thinking about how to appeal to the public, they are desperately scared of turning the wealthy people who run our media and fund our politics against them. starmar is trying to sound amorphously progressive while not actually threatening the wealth and power of the people who make fortunes and gain ever more influence from the system as it’s currently run

Just teaching them where money is created would be a good start, practically no one understands Fractional Reserve Banking. How inflation is a stealth tax and the basics of the Austrian school of economics should also be on the curriculum.

Nobody knows anything! You need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin, while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.

But the professionals are still crushing it right now because they have both the necessary approach to pull off a profit in the market plus access to insider market knowledge that isn’t made public.

Exactly why i enjoy market decisions being guided by a professional, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk management and market experience, been using the expertise and guidance of John Desmond Heppolette, for over 5years+ and I've netted over $3million in that time frame..

I've shuffled through a few financial advisor in the past, but settled with John Desmond Heppolette. The strategy he use is recession-proof, more specifically profit-oriented, and most likely, you'd find his basic info on the net, he's a renowned advisor.

Thanks for the information! I just discovered his exceptional resume when I made a research of his full names online. He appears knowledgeable and well accredited. I drop him a message and book a call session with him!

They are freeloaders that wants other people to pay their council tax. Council tax is for local services like schools, social care, rubbish collection and recycling, street lights, police, fire brigade etc etc, If you live in a community you should pay towards that community. Those young men have been getting handouts all their lives, now when it's time to put something back they are stretching their necks to find someone else to pay for them. How very typical of the entitlement generation.

The tax system is unfair when most people are on 16hr contracts they pay nothing in you need to get people working and paying in.

Correct and yet we need to reform the tax system. How do you start when it the system is set up to benefit the ultra rich

Everyone complains the tax system is unfair. The bigger injustice is taking our hard earned taxes and giving it away to those who don’t want to work. Britain has grown into a country of work shy, I want something for nothing sofa slugs. The rest of us work hard to keep them…. Get those who can work into work, then let’s have a debate on increased taxation. STOP over taxing those of us who do work….! to pay for those who choose not to work. STOP draining our social services to pay for the lazy.

And of course there is National insurance that stops at a certain level that never seems to be updated.

"lucky enough to own assets and doing nothing to earn that the return on those assets." Because CGT is not indexed against inflation you can be taxed for making a loss on those assets in real terms.

When you include NI the real tax rates are 32%,42%.

@@NorthDownReader income is not indexed against inflation either. CGT is lower because rich people run the country.

Gordon Brown changed the system. Blue Labour.

Thanks, and welcome!

​@@NewStatesmanagreed, well done everyone involved

future is looking good but it will take a while...maybe another ten years or so

@@valuetraveler2026 ive heard that for 5 decades almost lol, the only one with a actual feelgood factor for most people were in the 90s

But Globalisation destroyed the nation state democracy decades ago unfortunately.

I’m 18 right now and I’m terrified

😂 you forgot gambling duty 😂

@@SibylleHyde 🤣 It’s number 22 on the list but thanks 🙏🏼 😀

Oops

And many more😵‍💫

Blame Thatcher. She brought in the council tax to stop us average folk having too much power. In the 80s, too many people were becoming mortgage free before they reached 40. They all had numerous properties as an extra income stream. 30 plus years later, most people will die with a mortgage. Her plan worked a treat.

In Italy, I was paying €45 per year on council tax.

Don’t forget all the other taxes we pay as well, how did the previous generations allow this.. they have allowed this take over and now we are finished.

Ever asked your self where that goes?

Thanks for sharing it! Saving my time with useful time stamps! where you get this AI summary tool Tammy AI??

The mega rich are the issue, the top 1% not the others making decent income with small limited companies yet these are the ones who get hit most and pay in the most tax relatively.

Rubbish I come from a normal family,the government took 40%in inheritance tax from us when my mum died!

"...almost all inherited capital being passed on untaxed." Classic Tricky Dicky BS we expect from Labour. Will it be policy to remove the family home provisions? After all, we can't have all those modest 3 bed semis being passed on, can we? They are usually below the threshold now. That's "untaxed inherited capital" after all. Labour has always detested the aspirational working class, so are they going to stick to type? With 75% of the land stolen from the English people 1000 years ago still in the hands of the descendants, surely it is way beyond time to rectify this injustice? No need to be punitive, just take the estates into public ownership without compensation as 'reparations' for the misdeeds of the past. Hell will freeze over first, even Benn wasn't allowed to mention it. Widow's pensions? After all, they are funded from "inherited capital" aren't they? Grandstanding? Smokescreening? Choose to suit. The country is now governed by an avowed Thatcherite, and the prospective Labour PM is an avowed Blairite, and has stuffed his future cabinet with ditto clones. Nothing at all will change that favours working people. I wonder what Penny Mordant's policies will be? The next five years are a write off already.

@@Michael-ur3on the rich don’t own the majority of their wealth in person, there’s funds and firms that own their real estate, their art works, their investments, … , so their children won’t be taxed on all of the wealth. Your mums complete capital/wealth was hers, so you pay 40% on all of it.

The rich will just leave.

I daresay they do.. but choose to put their boss and doners in money profit gain

Communists?

Sad indeed. That is why they always say any tax reform is a 'socialist thing'. They have fooled us all for so long.

Respect

More income tax, not tax overall.

@@zuzanazuscinova5209 Oh that’s OK then.

ok

World War eleven?? God, I must have been asleep longer than I’d intended!

​@@judeirwin2222Lucky you missed 4 but 8 was a corker!

I remember my father complaining, when I was 5 years old, about austerity and how "we all have to tighten our belts". I am now 76! Yes nothing changes.

Should we hope he is a terminator sent from the future to destroy the burgeoning AI industry...?

@@jusw I laughed.

Emotionally-charged decisions to sell off large quantities of stocks or other investments now lock in your losses, removing any chance for future growth.

A 2022 Northwestern Mutual study found that 75% of U.S. adults admit their financial planning needs improvement. However, only 29% of Americans work with a financial advisor.

Very correct; the bear market has contributed significantly to the growth of my investment. I was able to quickly increase my portfolio from $180K to $472K. Essentially, I was just doing as my financial advisor instructed. You're good to go as long as you get competent assistance.

​@@JessrobbieWould it be okay if I asked you to recommend this specific advisor or company that you used their services? Seems you've figured it all out.

​@devoncampbell275: I personally have my portfolio overseen by California-based wealth advisor and fixed income strategist at that 'Britney Cohen Rose > Pro' well established and you'd find her professional bio on the net. However I suggHowever look closer to home, sometimes to move certain amount of money I am required to be in California.

Of course, with members leaving Labour -where do you think labours record funding is coming from?

I'm not surprised. There's a reason Labour HQ was always anti Corbyn.

@@shabbydabbydo314 That sentence doesn't even make sense

@@M896 think about it...

No, really, it doesn't. Try writing it again, please.

uk is not real

Who would invest with high tax returns

We have low investment compared to us so who invests anyway

It is more to do with stopping the poor becoming rich.

I’m self made multimillionaire. Why should I pay more tax?

Ring fenced jobs for the rich….! Do you know how industry works? I would suggest, higher roles are only available to them because they were afforded private education and a position in the top universities (similar to the two presenters). No business can afford to employ an under-performer, it simply does not happen. However I agree, if you are lucky enough to be afforded a private education and position in a top University, you stand a higher chance of being successful and securing a top job. This is the only privilege the wealthy have…… and is a product of an our failing education system and ridiculous university costs. Scrap university fees for British people and more have the opportunity of higher paid jobs.

Ns went against labour when they promoted policies they now talk about.

What's the Tories approach? Crash the economy and lose 100's of billions a year through cronyism /corruption, Brexit & political skulduggery and general managed decline of the pillars of society which are inextricably linked to the performance of the economy, then bully and steal from the poor to give to the mega wealthy who have more money than they know what to do with and through their spending patterns drive up asset prices while being taxed less than someone on 37k.

Because there is not Tory or Labour any more. They are all part of the globalist uni-party following the WEF mantra of UN agenda 2030.

Aye, the Tories have done a much better job than Labour, and will continue to do so, in the run-up to winning the next GE. /s

@@wolfen210959 Yea good one. You probably believe Jimmy Savile cared about young people too right?

Absolutely

great comment

100%. Because the ultimate goal of western elites is the stratification of us, and them. There will be no economic ladder. Simply the sewers and the ivory towers. No in between.

Rebalancing council rates would have a lot of effects. Wages can be lower if rates are lower. There could be more disparity in purchases power between authorities than there already is. Property values are also very dynamic change the upkeep costs substantially and prices will fly off in unpredictable directions.

Completely agree. Avg house price in Burnley is 133k. .5% is around £600 p/a. London’s average is £750k, so .5% is £3750. If London are paying 6x the same CT, how can Burnley expect the same standard of services.

Landowners would just put the rent up to cover them paying council tax if they had to pay it.

If you follow the American economy,the old adage of they sneeze,we catch a cold,is very pertinent,American property taxes are out of control,uk council tax,potentially rising too unaffordable levels.

The higher the rent, the more valuable the property, the more it pays in tax. Simple raising rent makes it less profitable and property is forced to be less valuable. Your point is null, georgism ftw

I'm Australian, and agree completely. This is a conversation that needs to happen in all countries with ageing populations, growing wealth inequality, and unattainable housing expenses.

Agree as well as a Canadian living for the last year in London and seeing so many similarities on how inequality is getting intitutionalised.

I do despair when people moan about dividend payments to share holders. People have to remember that pension funds fund pension payments via dividend payments. Anybody who has a pension private or workplace is an indirect shareholder's and receives dividend payments indirectly via the value of their pension. What should be taught in school is how to buy shares and create a passive income. School does not teach how money works and how to create wealth. I am sure it would catch the imagination of many kids who under achieve, who see no way but to stay poor working in most jobs. Their ambition becomes to join a gang and make easy money selling drugs. The wealthy do not want the state educated children to understand how money works. They want to keep that privilege for their own children. I talk to many people about share ownership and building a passive income. Their answer is that you understand that, I don't. The reason they don't understand share ownership is because they were never taught how money works in school. They learn how to get a credit card but are not taught how to use and manage credit cards and how to make credit work for them. I hardly buy everything outright with my capital, I use interest-free credit to pay for nearly everything and then use my capital to work for me. Share ownership is not about a quick buck but a long term investments to build dividend payments for later in life and achieve financial security.

@@michaeloconnor9465 I agree, Knowledge of the advantages of share ownership (which is true public ownership) is hard to come by in state schools and it is only when you get to university that you meet people who can help. I suggest people contact the share foundation (Gavin Oldham) who can help.

Can you elaborate on the loopholes you describe? Curious to know, if you were moving abroad (either to retire or for a job opportunity), would you be happy to have the value of your assets (including savings and house sale proceeds) taxed on exit?

​@michaeloconnor9465 one man's passive income is another man's enslavement

The wealthy should have the freedom to move their assets offshore, as those assets belong to them. In a world that values freedom, individuals should have the right to relocate if their current residence doesn't align with their beliefs.

I'd probably propose councils sharing out the council tax raised around the country, so richer councils get the same as they do now and poor councils receive a 'subsidy' as such. When a property is your main residence you don't pay capital gains on it when its sold if you buy another place. You only pay stamp duty on the new property being bought. It would affect wealthy buying a selling property that isn't main residence and also their shares in stocks or any other asset they sell at a profit.

Councils don't receive the money that is raised in their area from council tax. Council tax goes to the UK central government who then give a proportion back out to local councils which isn't necessarily reflective of the council tax base.

This is cr#p! You seem to miss the fact that people have quite often paid income tax to create their wealth. If investments have made a capital gain they have taken the investment risk to achieve that gain. We all have access to the same services regardless of the value of our house. The main problem in the UK is too many on benefits that shouldn't be.

On paper all ideas are brilliant, when you come to implement them, most are not viable. Ok you remove the renters from paying the council tax - What will the landlord do? Pass it over to the tenant, meaning rent increase. Just like Business rates (from ANY business) are passed over to consumers.

@@user-vm7eg3jc4e Have you got anything to back that up? If it's true, why do councils try to increase their local council tax to make up for funding shortfalls?

😂 that won’t fit the agenda,will it

Your solution shows that PR is a pre-requisite - we can only hope that reform of the Lords with a PR elected second assembly takes away the fear of change for the governing assembly

We need individual representation. We have the technology..

Does it work though? a brief look at some of the multi party setups around the world shows lots of governments that simply cant get anything done due to lack of consensus or when they do reach major decisions its often done at the price of bold change where interest groups use their bargaining power to water down or change the policy or program to their own benefit not necessarily to the betterment of those its meant to serve.. I don't disagree that what we have now is a catastrophic mess for a whole host of reasons, but one thing a single party majority can get you is decisive action, where the issue then becomes putting the right people in power that align with the actual needs and wants of the populous, something we've soundly failed at for decades. TL/DR Coalition rule can help stop policy's you don't want being rammed through, but it does so at the cost of holding back policy that you do want to see come to pass in a timely fashion...

@@richardhorton25 can you imagine the peoplewho get voted in tho? they be love island contenstants :/

Sadly, that would require a better form of democracy than currently exists, anywhere in the world. Most countries of the world have a duopoly system, even if it was not intended to be, simply because most people in the democracy are "centrists", therefore most political parties straddle that "centrist" line, with occasional periods of extremes. This inevitably leads to a left of centre party, and a right of centre party, with additional minority parties usually campaigning on a single issue, such as the Green Party here in the UK. The main difference here in the UK is that we only have one party on the right, and many parties on the left, therefore the right leaning party tends to win more elections, as the left leaning parties are contesting with each other for their share of the vote. I understand that there are countries which have a PR type system, but most of those are still dominated by one of two parties opposed to each other.

You forgot to mention her private yacht. It’s been going on much further back than the 1950s and much of the wealth that built so many of our 18th and early 19th Century National Trust properties and private stately homes was derived from income from the slave trade (e.g. Capesthorne Hall in Cheshire).

Employees don’t generate wealth. CUSTOMERS do.

The reason for the backlash against Globalisation. The income and lifestyle any job can provide a person is ceasing to be determined by the country they live in and the norms of that country, and increasingly now by the 'Global' average lifestyle for that job. Well done for being a cleaner, it's a valuable and important job, but say India with its approximately 20% of the global population. Do you think the average cleaner in India lives the lifestyle of a working class person in the UK, possibly a 'proper' place to live, schooling, public health services, possibly a car, a holiday, a smart phone a holiday? Or do you think they live in abject poverty in a slum?

Thanks for your feedback, glad you enjoyed the video. The link to the article is in the description.

All tax systems encourage you to use the law to your advantage. Tax system aims to encourage economic activity. The average working person can reduce the tax they pay by paying into their pension more, investing into S&S ISA that is free from tax, and there are lots of ways to reduce your tax burden legally as a ltd company. The average person can do all these things.

Especially by those people who preside over it.

No just the tories giving big tax cuts for big corporate businesses and the wealthy and higher payed since 2010, and at the exact same time slashing funding in real terms adjusted for inflation for all public services to its lowest levels in in well over 40 yrs or more. And screwing the rest of us basic rate tax payers etc

If the "average person" makes substantial income from their invested wealth, then I don't see a problem with that. It's a capital gains tax, it should apply equally. It's just that it shouldn't be taxed less than working for a living. Tax income as income.

Nobody is talking about new taxes, it's about changing the rates for existing taxes so that the wealthy pay more. There has been an asset boom over that last few years and much of the wealth has gone to people with assets from people who work.

Stop your government giving your taxes away to other countries and involving the country in war overseas then talk about increasing taxes

​@antonymossop3135 yes and no. If you have a salary you get that every month that you are employed If you invest anything the upside potential is very variable so you au least need a proper offset in place for when you score a loss.

This is such a lame view of capital gains. In an scenario of increased global mobility, it is easy for capital to move out of the country. Capitalists drive this economy. Here I refer to data not some opinion based on emotions. I say CGT should be lowered to attract capital and drive the economy further. People are better off paying taxes in a growing economy. Paying higher tax on a higher income is better than paying lower tax in an economy in shambles

In a first past the post system, your best option is to support the least worst viable option. Anything else just helps the worst viable option. If you want to support more nuanced parties (rather than broad church parties like Torys and Labour) and expect them to have any power, then you need proportional representation first.

There is no one single party on the face of the earth who cares about the people, human beings only care about themselves not others !

why should it be fair to rich folk? if i take half a multi millioniars money is he poor? ;)

Really have you been listening the past 30 years labour don't care about the working classes

The leader of the labor party is just a rich person too with income from capital gains. Not as rich but he certainly benefits from the current system

Look what happened to Corbyn, the public rather have BoJo than any radical shift in tax structure and infrastructure spend. We’re getting what we voted for, not sure why people are moaning.

Corbyn lol million pound house in London MP pension and wife has a sweat shop in Mexico the your corbyn

Labour is no different from the Conservative. They are both in the same bed

Yep.

I think another idea is tax increases on the rich are to be used on things that benefit both the poor and the rich, so spending on infrastructure that is near to where both the wealthy and the poor live, I think it makes sense to get the rich on our side

Imagine having an undergrad and masters student loan on top of that. An extra 15% makes that about 58% tax over 50k. Absolutely insane.

This problem of stepped level taxation affects aspiration and survival for both personal situations and business . Three times I have grown a small retail business, only to find the vat threshold unconquerable. Suddenly reaching a stage where 12% of your turnover becomes tax ( 20% less any input tax) means that what used to be your earnings just disappears overnight. I agree that additional taxing of assets rather than taxing work seems more sustainable.

That's not how the UK tax works. You'll only pay 40% on the amount above the threshold, not the total value. You'll still be earning more than someone in the band below you. Saying otherwise is just a lie, and serves the rich's interests.

Indeed these young guys would further tax your hard worked for investments and responsibilities taken. You do the simple work / life balance calculations and decide not to improve your positions. That’s the rub, tax the risk takers and responsible and you kill the economic drivers. IMHO

Highly unlikely you’ll ever face an inheritance tax bill, it effects a tiny proportion of estates (anything over £1 million).

In addition properties that in London would overnight lose half their value or more.

Yeah it's like almost a feudal system now

It's been that way since my ancestors lived in Britain. And they came over on a sailing ship.

@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 Romans? Vikings or Saxons? 😅

i know its shocking how 10% of adults have never worked and nearly a third of adults earn less than the taxable minimum, meaning nearly half of the adult population don't pay income tax. it is disgusting how these poor people don't pay income tax like the rest of us. oh wait you probably meant it was unequal somehow the other way around.

Wodelouse… taking your comment seriously, I’m afraid we need people who have the balls to get off their arses and take risks, and why shouldn’t an investment (and risk) be taxed at a lower figure. We live in a nanny state and most people expect the state to pay for them, so this encourages ‘why work mentality’ I’ve been self employed all my life and have worked through sweat and worry, and now I’m retired and can’t enjoy my life, but the socialist say tax that capitalist pig, why should he be wealthy while I’ve sat on my arse and done f..k all with my life. We need rich people, if not, go and live in China and all live the same

Where did you purchase your wife from?

Labour voter all my life. Now voting conservative because there is no difference. Might as well give it to the OG.

@@pacman7959 ✌Tory Troll.

But if don't win, you don't pay.

The central government in the UK essentially regulates and controls the council budgets and already effectively redistributes the funding. It's a different system from the US (which itself varies at the state level). So it's already being centrally managed, it's really just where you turn the dial...

Also lived in the US. The local nature of property taxes is only one of the major issues with it. It's a tax on what's is most people largest none liquid asset, that they have no control over it's value or ability sell a fraction of the asset to cover the taxes. So what happens is people are priced out of there own homes, because they buy a cheap house, there is a housing boom and they can no longer afford the tax bill. There left with no choice but to sell and relocate to a cheaper area, as they don't have the income to cover the tax. Then there's the issue that taxing someone on the value of there property, requires defining the value of that property. The US local authorities spend insane amounts of money doing this yearly and basically every property owner argues and fight the value. Which is just a massive waste of time and money. It's just a very stupid way to tax people. The UK council tax is much more sensible system and it would be much better to adjust that, add more bands, adjust how properties are assigned to bands, making the band pricing more reflective of the local situation etc etc. Than go to the regressive and flawed US style system.

The U.S is effectively a third world country. For every billionaire there are thousands of people living on the streets in defacto refugee camps. They are the perfect example of inequality.

they’re all going bankrupt anyway 😅 the councils were investing all their money in real estate I guess

Agree, but reducing the burden of taxation on regular income needs to be offset by raising that tax revenue somewhere else, which is what Harry Lambert is suggesting could (and morally, should) be increased taxation on capital (wealth).

Yup. In the US I pay the property tax on both my own and rental properties - same rate

Long overdue: I would replace Business Rates and Council Taxes with a Land Value Tax!

He would have to increase it by more, to cover the risk he is now carrying if a tenant fails to pay. So ultimately it costs the good tenant more.

Of course - this would happen to start with but the purpose is that homeowners pay for houses regardless of occupancy. If you have no tenants nobody is paying that tax today. If instead the landlord is on the hook regardless of if they have a tenant, they have greater incentive to fill the house, which means they have to compete harder for getting a tenant quicker and means there is greater supply, lowering costs overall (and giving local authorities more funding from the revenue raised on empty properties)

Agreed.

You forgot the TV tax

Agree , we were supposed to abolish V A T when we left the E U , seems the average people haven't benefitted from either being a member of the E U or being out of it , when we were in we didn't have much of a say , but we payed the second largest amount in , now were out everything has gone up even more , really can't win .

There’s a thing called the Overton window which restricts how fast and how radical changes can be. Any tax change creates winners and losers so it’s very dangerous for a government to stray too far too fast from what has already been normalised. Liz Truss discovered the Overton window in her brief tenure of No 10.

Yes but no but. You can consider them stealth taxes, and sometimes they are, but why should I pay the same amount of fuel duty [edit: should read 'Vehicle Excise Duty' not 'fuel duty'] on the 5000 miles I drive for work a year as someone who drives 20000 miles a year when I don't pollute and wear out the road as much? Why should I pay alcohol tax for alcohol I don't drink etc etc? The point of some taxes is that they help encourage other behaviour, or raise money which could be used (note I said 'could') be used to mitigate the negative effect of certain actions. Alcohol causes cancer. Smoking causes cancer. Neither have any real health benefits. Is it a good idea to use tax to try to make them less affordable? Should tobacco taxes be used directly to help improve certain NHS departments for those affected? But what if giving up smoking and drinking is easier for the privileged among us and does it become a tax on the poor? Hmm. This whole redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I thought, said Dennis Moore.

If you want to know the Tory future, read Dickens