While I am sure you mean well your idea of soaking the rich (mostly businessmen and entrepreneurs) would actually COST this country money and would be a token gesture that would benefit no one bar offshore tax havens, trust funds and lawyers and accountants trained in the art of tax avoidance loopholes

Oh, I forgot to say I think Labour should also propose bringing in huge flat taxes for non-domiciles. So that would solve the problem you raise.

 

 

The important thing in this country is to get people starting and growing businesses, that is ultimately where job creation comes from, small businesses and anyone who starts a business is going to have an aspiration to earn £150k a year so where is the incentive in an entrepreneur setting up on his own to be a success when you are telling him 'Work 16 hrs a day 5 days a week and we will take 3 days of your money and give it to scroungers and fund pointless wars'

 

Where the hell have you been for the last two years? Encouraging everyone to set up businesses, and getting them to take out huge loans from banks to get them started, is exactly what caused the credit crunch and subsequent financial crisis. I don't like much at all of what Cameron says, but I think he would be well-advised to revive some of his talk about an 'age of austerity' - people need to start realising they have to live within their means, and not set up businesses on the wing of a dream which are destined to failure.

Edited May 25, 201015 yr by Danny

Why is the best thing a flat rate of low tax? It isn't THAT difficult to work out 50% of £150,000, and the gains from people who will stop avoiding tax are minimal compared to the massive cuts in public spending that such a ridiculous policy would require.

 

50% is too high even now, put it up to 65% like Danny is suggesting and BA will turn a £500m loss into a massive profit coping with all the one way flights out of this country by the cream of our people all going off in search of places where you pay less tax.

 

Why would there have to be cuts in public spending ? more people having more money to spend (around 8m people pay 40% tax) cutting them down to 25% will massively boost consumer consumption which in turn would create jobs which in turn would take more and more people out of state benefits and paying tax

 

Having a flat rate of tax would mean travel companies, estate agents, car dealerships, retailers in general would be swamped and that would create jobs. People in jobs would pay tax

 

 

Oh, I forgot to say I think Labour should also propose bringing in huge flat taxes for non-domiciles. So that would solve the problem you raise.

Where the hell have you been for the last two years? Encouraging everyone to set up businesses, and getting them to take out huge loans from banks to get them started, is exactly what caused the credit crunch and subsequent financial crisis. I don't like much at all of what Cameron says, but I think he would be well-advised to revive some of his talk about an 'age of austerity' - people need to start realising they have to live within their means, and not set up businesses on the wing of a dream which are destined to failure.

 

No one forces anyone to take out a loan, I run a business and have never taken a loan out in my life

The 50% tax rate didn't result in the mass exodus that you predicted, and a 60-65% top rate wouldn't do so either. I think it says a lot about your frame of mind that you assume everyone who earns that much would rather fit their life around their money than vice versa.

 

It would boost consumer consumption, but the vast majority of the tax cuts would end up going into savings - particularly for those on the top rates of tax. Certainly the gains in increased employment wouldn't be enough to deal with a fall in revenues from £606 billion to about £400 billion (and that's the most optimistic prediction) - we don't have THAT many people on state benefits, regardless of what the tabloids may say. Overall benefits are just £11 billion!

The 50% tax rate didn't result in the mass exodus that you predicted, and a 60-65% top rate wouldn't do so either. I think it says a lot about your frame of mind that you assume everyone who earns that much would rather fit their life around their money than vice versa.

 

It would boost consumer consumption, but the vast majority of the tax cuts would end up going into savings - particularly for those on the top rates of tax. Certainly the gains in increased employment wouldn't be enough to deal with a fall in revenues from £606 billion to about £400 billion (and that's the most optimistic prediction) - we don't have THAT many people on state benefits, regardless of what the tabloids may say. Overall benefits are just £11 billion!

 

I earn enough to pay top rate tax (not the 50%), I can stomach that as am a patriot but if this or any future governments started upping my tax then I am gone, I am in business because I am motivated by money and seeing more and more of it go into government hands when I have worked my nuts off to build a comfortable (but not rich) lifestyle does take away a lot of my motivation and I think 'why bother', I am not at the point where I have any desire to up sticks atm and go trade in another country but had Labour got in again I have no doubt I would be posting from an Australian, American or Canadian IP this time next year.

Craig, I'm pretty sure Germany has higher tax rates than we do, and their economy is in far better shape than ours. So you can stop your apocalyptic predictions.

I earn enough to pay top rate tax (not the 50%), I can stomach that as am a patriot but if this or any future governments started upping my tax then I am gone, I am in business because I am motivated by money and seeing more and more of it go into government hands when I have worked my nuts off to build a comfortable (but not rich) lifestyle does take away a lot of my motivation and I think 'why bother', I am not at the point where I have any desire to up sticks atm and go trade in another country but had Labour got in again I have no doubt I would be posting from an Australian, American or Canadian IP this time next year.

 

So to avoid paying higher taxes, you'd close your business altogether and move to another country, solely so that you don't have to pay more in tax?

So to avoid paying higher taxes, you'd close your business altogether and move to another country, solely so that you don't have to pay more in tax?

 

Yes

 

What would be the point in me slaving away for less and less money ? it is not just direct taxation but stealth taxes and petrol too (especially petrol)

 

It is frustrating doing 12 hr days and not having much to save at the end of the month as it has all gone on taxes, petrol etc while at the same time my taxes are being wasted on wars, nuclear weapons, housing immigrants who have never paid a penny in tax, Crazy Chris types who won't get off their fat arses and work, benefits for chavs who can't keep their legs shut and churn out kid after kid usually after one night stands with the dad, so long as I am enjoying the pursuit of money I will do it in this country but this last 5 years tested it to the absolute limit

Yes

 

What would be the point in me slaving away for less and less money ? it is not just direct taxation but stealth taxes and petrol too (especially petrol)

 

It is frustrating doing 12 hr days and not having much to save at the end of the month as it has all gone on taxes, petrol etc while at the same time my taxes are being wasted on wars, nuclear weapons, housing immigrants who have never paid a penny in tax, Crazy Chris types who won't get off their fat arses and work, benefits for chavs who can't keep their legs shut and churn out kid after kid usually after one night stands with the dad, so long as I am enjoying the pursuit of money I will do it in this country but this last 5 years tested it to the absolute limit

 

Where's the logic in cutting off ALL of your income (by closing your business) in protest at the state taking away a bit more in tax?

 

By the sounds of it, you've been running a successful business for many years - so I'm presuming you have quite a lot of money in savings. With respect, do you actually need most of it? Do you even have any depedents?

Edited May 25, 201015 yr by Danny

Where's the logic in cutting off ALL of your income (by closing your business) in protest at the state taking away a bit more in tax?

 

By the sounds of it, you've been running a successful business for many years - so I'm presuming you have quite a lot of money in savings. With respect, do you actually need most of it? Do you even have any depedents?

 

I would sell it and then use the proceeds to buy up something in another country, I have a passion for motor racing and motorsport so would maybe set up a motor racing memorabilia store overseas or something and work there full time, my uncle moved to Australia after a career in IT and now runs a quite successful motorbike sales business

 

I don't at all tbh, if I sold my business I would probably get an upper 5 figure sum for it maybe touching on for 6 figures, I have a portfolio of shares so again my business value and my shares are not hard cash they are literally bits of paper which could go seriously down in value as well as up

 

In terms of cash in the bank you would be surprised, I run a car (used to run 2 cars), I don't own a house but instead pay over £15k a year in rent and council tax, I spend around £300 a month on food, around £150 a month on alcohol etc

 

I am comfortable, if I wanted to go somewhere on holiday tomorrow I could afford it but I am not rich, typical middle class lifestyle

Edited May 25, 201015 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

Yes

 

What would be the point in me slaving away for less and less money ? it is not just direct taxation but stealth taxes and petrol too (especially petrol)

 

It is frustrating doing 12 hr days and not having much to save at the end of the month as it has all gone on taxes, petrol etc while at the same time my taxes are being wasted on wars, nuclear weapons, housing immigrants who have never paid a penny in tax, Crazy Chris types who won't get off their fat arses and work, benefits for chavs who can't keep their legs shut and churn out kid after kid usually after one night stands with the dad, so long as I am enjoying the pursuit of money I will do it in this country but this last 5 years tested it to the absolute limit

But look at what can happen of you do away with IHT. Take the person who won £60m on the euro lottery the other week. They won't need to work again. They can then pass on their money to their children - assuming they have any. With no inheritance tax to pay, those children won't need to work either. In your charming words they can just sit on their fat arses. The same will apply for several more generations. Why should generations of people be able to avoid working just because someone got lucky?

But look at what can happen of you do away with IHT. Take the person who won £60m on the euro lottery the other week. They won't need to work again. They can then pass on their money to their children - assuming they have any. With no inheritance tax to pay, those children won't need to work either. In your charming words they can just sit on their fat arses. The same will apply for several more generations. Why should generations of people be able to avoid working just because someone got lucky?

 

Extreme example so let me do one

 

Alan Sugar worked incredibly hard going from a rough council estate to become a billionaire, paid his taxes, bought lots of stuff, created hundreds and thousands of jobs, why is it fair that Sugar and his family be taxed again when he dies ?

Extreme example so let me do one

 

Alan Sugar worked incredibly hard going from a rough council estate to become a billionaire, paid his taxes, bought lots of stuff, created hundreds and thousands of jobs, why is it fair that Sugar and his family be taxed again when he dies ?

As Tyron has already pointed out, he won't be. He'll be dead. To follow on from my example, how many generations of Sugars do you think should be able to sit on their fat arses because of one person's wealth? We all pay taxes such as VAT out of income that has already been taxed so what's so different about IHT? What's so unfair about a tax that is only paid by a small minority of - by definition - wealthy estates?

As Tyron has already pointed out, he won't be. He'll be dead. To follow on from my example, how many generations of Sugars do you think should be able to sit on their fat arses because of one person's wealth? We all pay taxes such as VAT out of income that has already been taxed so what's so different about IHT? What's so unfair about a tax that is only paid by a small minority of - by definition - wealthy estates?

 

How do you define wealthy ?

 

Is a pensioner that bought a Fulham maisonette 25 years ago for £20k that is now worth £2m if it was sold rich ? what if this person's only thing of value is this property and he doesn't have much in his bank account is he really wealthy ? I know people who are paper millionaires through buying a property decades ago I would never describe them as wealthy so why should people be clobbered by inheritence tax on the basis of a decades old property investment ?

 

Most millionaires in this country are millionaires through a property

 

£2m is far too low, it should be £20m+ if it was to be bought in as to me £2m is not wealthy

How do you define wealthy ?

 

Is a pensioner that bought a Fulham maisonette 25 years ago for £20k that is now worth £2m if it was sold rich ? what if this person's only thing of value is this property and he doesn't have much in his bank account is he really wealthy ? I know people who are paper millionaires through buying a property decades ago I would never describe them as wealthy so why should people be clobbered by inheritence tax on the basis of a decades old property investment ?

 

Most millionaires in this country are millionaires through a property

 

£2m is far too low, it should be £20m+ if it was to be bought in as to me £2m is not wealthy

 

If you don't class £2m as wealthy, then that confirms my belief that you personally have a lot more money than you need and so could stand to give a bit more in higher tax rates.

How do you define wealthy ?

 

Is a pensioner that bought a Fulham maisonette 25 years ago for £20k that is now worth £2m if it was sold rich ? what if this person's only thing of value is this property and he doesn't have much in his bank account is he really wealthy ? I know people who are paper millionaires through buying a property decades ago I would never describe them as wealthy so why should people be clobbered by inheritence tax on the basis of a decades old property investment ?

 

Most millionaires in this country are millionaires through a property

 

£2m is far too low, it should be £20m+ if it was to be bought in as to me £2m is not wealthy

But what did they do to make their property increase in value? In most cases, next to nothing, it was just down to the increase in property values generally. Inheritance tax is the only time an increase in the value of someone's main property - unearned income - is ever taxed.

 

Here's something else to think about. Not entirely relevant but it should give pause for thought. I read recently that the wealth of the richest 100 people in the UK increased by £77 billion last year. If that was taxed at 50% they would hardly notice the difference and the deficit would be cut by almost a quarter at a stroke.

If you don't class £2m as wealthy, then that confirms my belief that you personally have a lot more money than you need and so could stand to give a bit more in higher tax rates.

 

I wish I had £2m :lol:

 

But people who were just lucky enough to buy a property 25 years ago in an area that has experienced high house inflation isn't to me CASH RICH

 

I don't believe that families of people who are not cash rich should be clobbered for inheritance tax

 

I know someone who bought a house decades ago that is probably worth £2m now through house price inflation, he is a retired aerospace engineer and his wife was a nurse, he is not cash rich, does his estate deserve to be hammered when he dies ? no course not

 

 

If you don't class £2m as wealthy, then that confirms my belief that you personally have a lot more money than you need and so could stand to give a bit more in higher tax rates.

Indeed. I think it's fair to say that over 90% of people would consider £2m to be wealthy, very wealthy or fabulously wealthy.

But what did they do to make their property increase in value? In most cases, next to nothing, it was just down to the increase in property values generally. Inheritance tax is the only time an increase in the value of someone's main property - unearned income - is ever taxed.

 

Here's something else to think about. Not entirely relevant but it should give pause for thought. I read recently that the wealth of the richest 100 people in the UK increased by £77 billion last year. If that was taxed at 50% they would hardly notice the difference and the deficit would be cut by almost a quarter at a stroke.

 

Most of it is paper wealth though, shares in their company typically, it is not cash in the bank that they have, shares can crash and so on, their wealth increase is not cash in the bank it is slips of paper (share certificates)

Indeed. I think it's fair to say that over 90% of people would consider £2m to be wealthy, very wealthy or fabulously wealthy.

 

I consider £2m in cash in the bank or whatever to be wealthy, very wealthy infact, but I don't consider £2m in assets like for example property to be wealthy no

 

People need to look beyond the figures and at how that "wealth" is accumulated