Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Troy

I don't agree with inheritance tax. You should be able to leave your house to your children without saddling them with a high tax bill. Though saying that, it should be exempt on one property that is the main residence. If you have more then one house and you pass away then quite rightly they should be taxed.

quarky

Fretwired said:

quarky said:

No it is that the tax isn't working well enough to close that gap, like it used to if you go back 50 years.

If people stopped hiding stuff, I am not sure if that would be enough either. We are probably already at the stage where the richest 1% own more than the other 99%. What happens when the richest 1% own not 50%, but 75%? 90%? 99%? That could be a long way a way. It could never happen, but what do you think is going to stop that happening?

It's not a case of hiding stuff. The seriously wealthy are mobile and need cash in different locations - it's not all about tax dodging.

As I said in my reply to CabbageCat, it isn't about hiding stuff, it is about the widening gap. Either you have to accept that this is fine,and the rich owning ever larger and larger shares of wealth is a good thing, or it isn't a good thing, and something should be done for the benefit of all. If you don't see the gap as a problem though, then you won't see a need to do anything about it.

CabbageCat

Troy said:

I don't agree with inheritance tax. You should be able to leave your house to your children without saddling them with a high tax bill. Though saying that, it should be exempt on one property that is the main residence. If you have more then one house and you pass away then quite rightly they should be taxed.

I think inheritance tax is the least morally suspect tax. I'll have done nothing to earn any inheritance I get so I don't "deserve" it any more than HMRC. My income, however, I have earned but I'm not allowed to keep it all.

Fretwired

quarky said:

chrispy108 said:

You'd probably be happier moving here @quarky

Thanks but no. The cornering of wealth isn't what capitalism is about either. We are in danger of heading back to levels of inequality not seen since the middle ages (OK, slight artistic licence maybe, but you get the idea).

No I don't. It's meddling with statistics.

ICBM

Snap said:

I don't think that you shuold pay tax on profits from selling your home, and I don't agree with IHT. I see both as totally wrong, in principle. Its a standpoint, personal opinion. 

You pay stamp duty when you buy a house, which in itself is enough tax on residential property, again IMO.

Yes, but not when you *inherit* a house. That's the point - Inheritance Tax is not a tax on the person who has already paid tax on the income they used to buy the house, it's a tax on the person who *hasn't* but who has now acquired a house for free. To me every argument against Inheritance Tax is based on the same false premise. (For what it's worth, I benefitted from inheriting part of the value of a house, and I still agree with taxing it.)

I do actually disagree with Stamp Duty though.

quarky

Fretwired said:

 

Thanks but no. The cornering of wealth isn't what capitalism is about either. We are in danger of heading back to levels of inequality not seen since the middle ages (OK, slight artistic licence maybe, but you get the idea).

No I don't. It's meddling with statistics.

Right, OK.

Fretwired

quarky said:

Fretwired said:

quarky said:

No it is that the tax isn't working well enough to close that gap, like it used to if you go back 50 years.

If people stopped hiding stuff, I am not sure if that would be enough either. We are probably already at the stage where the richest 1% own more than the other 99%. What happens when the richest 1% own not 50%, but 75%? 90%? 99%? That could be a long way a way. It could never happen, but what do you think is going to stop that happening?

It's not a case of hiding stuff. The seriously wealthy are mobile and need cash in different locations - it's not all about tax dodging.

As I said in my reply to CabbageCat, it isn't about hiding stuff, it is about the widening gap. Either you have to accept that this is fine,and the rich owning ever larger and larger shares of wealth is a good thing, or it isn't a good thing, and something should be done for the benefit of all. If you don't see the gap as a problem though, then you won't see a need to do anything about it.

I asked earlier - define wealth. Much of it exists on paper - it's not real until it's turned into hard cash. Look at the banking crash .. rich one minute broke the next. I own a lot of shares .. you could say I'm wealthy, but in reality they are worthless until I'm paid a dividend (on which I pay tax) or sell them in which case I pay tax. Speculating as to what they maybe worth at a point in time is pointless.

The biggest inequality is opportunity.

CabbageCat

quarky said:

As I said in my reply to CabbageCat, it isn't about hiding stuff, it is about the widening gap. Either you have to accept that this is fine,and the rich owning ever larger and larger shares of wealth is a good thing, or it isn't a good thing, and something should be done for the benefit of all. If you don't see the gap as a problem though, then you won't see a need to do anything about it.

Why do you see the gap as a problem? It's widening because the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer, not because the poor are getting poorer. The rich aren't clambering to the top over the backs of the poor, they are pulling the poor up in their wake. Global poverty is falling dramatically as the third world becomes more advanced. A lot of people are making a lot of money on the back of it. Should they stop?

I know it has become cheesy to write it off as "jealousy" but I can't see any other reason why I would be cross that someone else was richer than me.

Fretwired

CabbageCat said:

quarky said:

As I said in my reply to CabbageCat, it isn't about hiding stuff, it is about the widening gap. Either you have to accept that this is fine,and the rich owning ever larger and larger shares of wealth is a good thing, or it isn't a good thing, and something should be done for the benefit of all. If you don't see the gap as a problem though, then you won't see a need to do anything about it.

Why do you see the gap as a problem? It's widening because the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer, not because the poor are getting poorer. The rich aren't clambering to the top over the backs of the poor, they are pulling the poor up in their wake. Global poverty is falling dramatically as the third world becomes more advanced. A lot of people are making a lot of money on the back of it. Should they stop?

I know it has become cheesy to write it off as "jealousy" but I can't see any other reason why I would be cross that someone else was richer than me.

@CabbageCat .. excellent post ..

quarky

I am not cross, jealous, envious, angry, frustrated, or whatever.

There seems to be a fair amount of evidence to show that inequality is destabilising. It is also potentially bad for growth, and ultimately, with wealth comes power. Should the wealthy have more control over peoples lives because they are wealthy?

quarky

some interesting information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30878840

CabbageCat

quarky said:

I am not cross, jealous, envious, angry, frustrated, or whatever.

There seems to be a fair amount of evidence to show that inequality is destabilising. It is also potentially bad for growth, and ultimately, with wealth comes power. Should the wealthy have more control over peoples lives because they are wealthy?

No, the wealthy shouldn't have control over others because they are wealthy - no-one should have control over someone else's life - but that doesn't mean that they should be wealthy. Just because I'm not anti-rich doesn't mean I'm not anti-slavery.

scrumhalf

quarky said:

No it is that the tax isn't working well enough to close that gap, like it used to if you go back 50 years.

Why is it the job of the tax system to close the gap? It's wasteful, illogical and has never worked.

quarky

scrumhalf said:

quarky said:

No it is that the tax isn't working well enough to close that gap, like it used to if you go back 50 years.

Why is it the job of the tax system to close the gap? It's wasteful, illogical and has never worked.

Well during those decades of higher upper-band taxation, the gap was closing.

CabbageCat

quarky said:

scrumhalf said:

quarky said:

No it is that the tax isn't working well enough to close that gap, like it used to if you go back 50 years.

Why is it the job of the tax system to close the gap? It's wasteful, illogical and has never worked.

Well during those decades of higher upper-band taxation, the gap was closing.

...because the rich all moved to Monaco...

quarky

Again, either you consider rising equality a problem or you don't.

CabbageCat

quarky said:

Again, either you consider rising equality a problem or you don't.

True. Though I guess everyone would consider rising equality a problem if it was happening because all the rich people moved away.

quarky

Lets do nothing then, and just let the gap grow and grow. 

Fretwired

quarky said:

Again, either you consider rising equality a problem or you don't.

I assume you mean inequality. It's slightly artificial as those at the bottom of society are far better off than people in the same boat during the 1960s so we're not talking about harsh poverty. The welfare system is also more generous with the government effectively subsiding low wages through the tax system and with benefits like tax credits and access to the NHS. You then have distortions caused by rising house prices the globalisation of big companies meaning CEO pay has risen and the simple fact that automation has meant people now need skills and an education to get a well-paid job. The well-paid low skilled jobs in car plants and factories have gone. Improving equality is not all about taxing the wealthy and redistributing it. It's about access to high quality education and training.

quarky

Fretwired said:

I assume you mean inequality. It's slightly artificial as those at the bottom of society are far better off than people in the same boat during the 1960s so we're not talking about harsh poverty. The welfare system is also more generous with the government effectively subsiding low wages through the tax system and with benefits like tax credits and access to the NHS. You then have distortions caused by rising house prices the globalisation of big companies meaning CEO pay has risen and the simple fact that automation has meant people now need skills and an education to get a well-paid job. The well-paid low skilled jobs in car plants and factories have gone. It's not all about taxing the wealthy and redistributing it.

There is plenty of evidence that higher inequality is worse than less inequality, but I guess that is, "meddling with statistics." But justify it to yourself as much as you want.