Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[Nobby Reserve]

The biggest problem of a wealth tax is that a massive proportion of it is hidden, and routed through a labyrinthine web of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

Tracing the beneficial ownership of assets from real estate to shareholdings would, under current [extremely lax] legislation, be impossible.

The first step must be to bring in a requirement to make annual submission of a statement of ownership of all assets or shares of assets for every individual - and make omission a criminal offence.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Two solutions I like (though they still have issues):

Self valuation but government retains the right to buy the asset off you at (say) 150% of the value
Limit it to immovable property. The rentier class is the real issue here. Much easier to value than IP and unlisted shares

(Just throwing it out because it's easy for us tax and public law lawyers to criticize so if otherwise I don't feel one is really really contributing to the debate)

Why not at 100%? This really would discourage (self-)undervaluation.

Or the big one:

Tax capital at the same rate as income (with an inflation allowance set at the rate of a given class of government bonds)

Definitely!

[reddebs]

The biggest problem of a wealth tax is that a massive proportion of it is hidden, and routed through a labyrinthine web of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

Tracing the beneficial ownership of assets from real estate to shareholdings would, under current [extremely lax] legislation, be impossible.

The first step must be to bring in a requirement to make annual submission of a statement of ownership of all assets or shares of assets for every individual - and make omission a criminal offence.

Forcing a lot of people who have no assets or shares to pay blood sucking accountants to tell the government they have nothing?

[filopastry]

Or the big one:

Tax capital at the same rate as income (with an inflation allowance set at the rate of a given class of government bonds)

Do you mean capital or capital gains here, just to clarify?

[filopastry]

Taxing assets that you own (not your main residence).

Do you included pension pots in that, because that is a very hefty number across a lot of people, but also if you value realistically a lot of public sector pensions are very valuable

[CowboyKangaroo]

Do you mean capital or capital gains here, just to clarify?

The latter (though outside of a discussion on wealth taxes, the point is moot!)

[CowboyKangaroo]

Why not at 100%? This really would discourage (self-)undervaluation.Definitely!

It generally could be seen as a bit disruptive for assets to be purchased willy nilly or for the government to be using it as a program of arbitrage. Some assets rapidly fluctuate in value. A figure over 100 accounts for this but stops people playing silly buggers

[Yorkykopite]

It generally could be seen as a bit disruptive for assets to be purchased willy nilly or for the government to be using it as a program of arbitrage. Some assets rapidly fluctuate in value. A figure over 100 accounts for this but stops people playing silly buggers

I do like that idea.

[CowboyKangaroo]

The biggest problem of a wealth tax is that a massive proportion of it is hidden, and routed through a labyrinthine web of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

Tracing the beneficial ownership of assets from real estate to shareholdings would, under current [extremely lax] legislation, be impossible.

The first step must be to bring in a requirement to make annual submission of a statement of ownership of all assets or shares of assets for every individual - and make omission a criminal offence.

This is really a subset of the capital flight issue. Some assets have already flown (as you rightly point out). Even more would if a wealth tax became likely

[Robinred]

Do you included pension pots in that, because that is a very hefty number across a lot of people, but also if you value realistically a lot of public sector pensions are very valuable

Inheritance tax was one of the subjects on yesterday’s More or Less on R4 - Martin Lewis gave a detailed explanation of who it would/wouldn’t affect, and pension pots were part of the discussion. Can’t say I fully understood all the fine details, but it’s available on BBC Sounds, if of interest.

[Elmo!]

I'd like to see the tax benefits of ISAs stripped back. No one needs to be able to save £20k every single year tax free. Only the very wealthy can afford that.

Especially if we are going to carry on with the pension triple lock. I've argued against the triple lock in the past but I'm actually OK with it if it is part of a long term strategy to swing back the balance from private pensions to an increased state pension. So possibly reduce the amount of tax benefits on private pensions as well to fund the triple lock.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It generally could be seen as a bit disruptive for assets to be purchased willy nilly or for the government to be using it as a program of arbitrage. Some assets rapidly fluctuate in value. A figure over 100 accounts for this but stops people playing silly buggers

That's surely unlikely to to happen. If the point is prevent people from vastly underestimating the value of their assets, the Government are only go to go to the trouble of a compulsory purchases in cases of obvious undervaluation and where the asset can be turned around easily. And if a future Government ever should get into the habit of compulsory purchases (again, unlikely), this would only encourage assets owners to err on the side of caution. No bad thing.

[Robinred]

This is really a subset of the capital flight issue. Some assets have already flown (as you rightly point out). Even more would if a wealth tax became likely

Can I ask, are you suggesting that notwithstanding the handful of ‘Davos’ millionaires/billionaires who have said “tax me more”, in reality, the huge majority would find it easy to dodge the bullet, and history shows, would do so?

[CowboyKangaroo]

That's surely unlikely to to happen. If the point is prevent people from vastly underestimating the value of their assets, the Government are only go to go to the trouble of a compulsory purchases in cases of obvious undervaluation and where the asset can be turned around easily. And if a future Government ever should get into the habit of compulsory purchases (again, unlikely), this would only encourage assets owners to err on the side of caution. No bad thing.

It may well be unlikely, but these are assets which are virtually impossible to value accurately. It gives comfort to business that the government is not likely to seize your assets unpredictably but an incentive to try. The actual percentage can be argued over, but it needs to account for the inherent uncertainty of value

[Jiminy Cricket]

It may well be unlikely, but these are assets which are virtually impossible to value accurately. It gives comfort to business that the government is not likely to seize your assets unpredictably but an incentive to try. The actual percentage can be argued over, but it needs to account for the inherent uncertainty of value

I understand your point. But if this was applied at 100%, it would encourage over-valuation rather than -under. We are actually making the same point. Because it is not just the valuation, but the tax rate applied. And whatever the percentage where the Government has the right buy the asset, the valuation game will be to apply as low a valuation as possible while still protecting the asset against potential compulsory purchase.

[Nobby Reserve]

Forcing a lot of people who have no assets or shares to pay blood sucking accountants to tell the government they have nothing?

You wouldn't need to do that. The majority of Self Assessment forms are completed by the taxpayer without any need for professional assistance.

The declaration I have in mind would only require the disclosure of assets over a certain figure (say £100k) and exclude your primary residence.

Anyone with multiple assets valued over £100k can fucking afford an accountant anyway.

[Nobby Reserve]

This is really a subset of the capital flight issue. Some assets have already flown (as you rightly point out). Even more would if a wealth tax became likely

Then, knowing 'capital flight' is a possibility, legislate to counter that.

I hate the mentality of "Oh, if you try to tax the rich more, they'll just move their money and assets out of reach".

WTF?

Just bring in legislation to criminalise that - and make penalties harsh (automatic prison sentences and asset-seizure)

[reddebs]

You wouldn't need to do that. The majority of Self Assessment forms are completed by the taxpayer without any need for professional assistance.

The declaration I have in mind would only require the disclosure of assets over a certain figure (say £100k) and exclude your primary residence.

Anyone with multiple assets valued over £100k can fucking afford an accountant anyway.

That's way different to saying make it a criminal offence if you don't declare and also £100k isn't a lot of money/assets/shares to be demanding a wealth tax.  Anyone with a piffling pension would be caught up in that.

[Nobby Reserve]

That's way different to saying make it a criminal offence if you don't declare and also £100k isn't a lot of money/assets/shares to be demanding a wealth tax.  Anyone with a piffling pension would be caught up in that.

I wasn't meaning the level for the wealth tax kicks in at £100k.

I'd have it around the £5m and upwards mark, personally.

But someone may own multiple assets of a few hundred grand each, so you need a mechanism of being able to total up everything of at least a certain value.

[TepidT2O]

I watched the itv documentary on Starmer last night.  Came across really well.

[ianburns252]

I wasn't meaning the level for the wealth tax kicks in at £100k.

I'd have it around the £5m and upwards mark, personally.

But someone may own multiple assets of a few hundred grand each, so you need a mechanism of being able to total up everything of at least a certain value.

On paper think this is a good idea - thinking of chattel rules with HMRC, an asset/group of assets need to exceed £6k to be of interest to them (heavily simplified here for ease of example) and maybe use this as the point at which something counts towards the wealth calculations.

You aren't going round the house totting up laptops and tvs for example but rather "major" items such as cars, expensive watches etc which you'd likely already be insuring and you would want to keep a good idea of their value anyway.

In terms of filing the declaration - Nobby is right that most people don't even need the services of an accountant to do the normal SA return but even for those who do use one your basic tax return is only £200-£500 plus VAT. When I say just I know to many these are big amounts but if you have yourself £100k in assets or more then you can likely spare that much if you need help with it.

I like also the idea of excluding your primary residence as it aligns with current tax rules around tax relief for CGT on sale of primary residence so would be built on the laws already in place rather than a complete re-write

[The North Bank]

Starmer is on talkshite right now. Might give it a listen to see if hes a real arsenal fan or a Tony Blair (i used to watch jackie milburn even though i was 4 and living in Australia when he played for Newcastle)

[The North Bank]

Ok he does he know his football and has been going to Arsenal all his life. Still dont like him but ill give him that.

[Yorkykopite]

Starmer is on talkshite right now. Might give it a listen to see if hes a real arsenal fan or a Tony Blair (i used to watch jackie milburn even though i was 4 and living in Australia when he played for Newcastle)

As a matter of fact, Blair never said that about Milburn. It was made up by a newspaper which we all detest and boycott at Liverpool.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/the-shocking-truth-blair-did-not-lie-about-jackie-milburn-495001.html

[So… Howard Philips]

As a matter of fact, Blair never said that about Milburn. It was made up by a newspaper which we all detest and boycott at Liverpool.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/the-shocking-truth-blair-did-not-lie-about-jackie-milburn-495001.html

Love this line from Peter Obirne;

Concludes Oborne: "There is abundant evidence that Blair is a liar, but on this occasion he is completely in the clear, and can be exonerated."

 

[Kenny's Jacket]

Ok he does he know his football and has been going to Arsenal all his life. Still dont like him but ill give him that.

Tbf I could have told you that hes a legit footy fan. Plays five a side and stuff

Still a posh c*nt from Surry, but he does know and love his Arse

[Yorkykopite]

Tbf I could have told you that hes a legit footy fan. Plays five a side and stuff

Still a posh c*nt from Surry, but he does know and love his Arse

Got to admire a working-class lad who rises to the top of his profession and retains his socialist values. Pity about Arsenal of course, but he sounds like he's a legit one unlike the public schoolboy who used to head the party.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Ok he does he know his football and has been going to Arsenal all his life. Still dont like him but ill give him that.

I'm sure Starmer will be elated at that.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Got to admire a working-class lad who rises to the top of his profession and retains his socialist values. Pity about Arsenal of course, but he sounds like he's a legit one unlike the public schoolboy who used to head the party.

Socialist Values - As Truss once said the juries out

Its not like you to criticise Blair, let it go mate, its in the past

[Yorkykopite]

Its not like you to criticise Blair, let it go mate, its in the past

Did he support Arsenal? I thought we'd agreed it was Newcastle.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Tbf I could have told you that hes a legit footy fan. Plays five a side and stuff

Still a posh c*nt from Surry, but he does know and love his Arse

Looking at the recent exchanges between you and @Yorkkopite: how is it that Starmer is a 'posh c*nt', and yet - it would seem - Corbyn is neither posh nor a c*nt? (Rhetorical question.)

[Kenny's Jacket]

Did he support Arsenal? I thought we'd agreed it was Newcastle.

He definitely supported George Bush

[TepidT2O]

Blair told my brother he supported Newcastle…

[Kenny's Jacket]

He might have advised his Saudi mates with the takeover

[west_london_red]

I'd like to see the tax benefits of ISAs stripped back. No one needs to be able to save £20k every single year tax free. Only the very wealthy can afford that.

Especially if we are going to carry on with the pension triple lock. I've argued against the triple lock in the past but I'm actually OK with it if it is part of a long term strategy to swing back the balance from private pensions to an increased state pension. So possibly reduce the amount of tax benefits on private pensions as well to fund the triple lock.

Agree on the ISA limit, it’s way too high and is quite regressive.

On the state pension, as I have said many times I absolutely disagree with the Triple lock, particularly when the pension age keeps increasing, by the time I get my pension I suspect the age will have hit 70 and in some jobs and sectors that’s something I find quite sad.

[oldfordie]

Socialist Values - As Truss once said the juries out

Its not like you to criticise Blair, let it go mate, its in the past

So he's not a proper socialist then, I had hope all that shit stayed in the 70s/80s.
I remember talking about it on here years ago and I don't think many had come across it much.
It's about putting people in a box, if  you don't believe what I believe then your not a proper socialist.

[Sangria]

Agree on the ISA limit, it’s way too high and is quite regressive.

On the state pension, as I have said many times I absolutely disagree with the Triple lock, particularly when the pension age keeps increasing, by the time I get my pension I suspect the age will have hit 70 and in some jobs and sectors that’s something I find quite sad.

Apparently there's a petition to raise the pension to £549/wk that's reached the level that requires a response. If I work 6 days a week it's still not as much as that.

[west_london_red]

Apparently there's a petition to raise the pension to £549/wk that's reached the level that requires a response. If I work 6 days a week it's still not as much as that.

Probably affordable if they increase the pension age to 125

[Elmo!]

Agree on the ISA limit, it’s way too high and is quite regressive.

On the state pension, as I have said many times I absolutely disagree with the Triple lock, particularly when the pension age keeps increasing, by the time I get my pension I suspect the age will have hit 70 and in some jobs and sectors that’s something I find quite sad.

I agree with you on the Triple Lock on its own. I'm just suggesting funding rises in the pension by reducing tax relief on private pensions. At the moment basically anyone that earns over £100k just salary sacrifices into their pension to build up a huge pension pot and avoid paying full income tax on their salary.

[Yorkykopite]

He definitely supported George Bush

But not the Ayatollah or Vladi Putin.