So then, what is the ideal top level tax rate (hint: not Denmark's 62% morriss) Page 4

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • Mr-Brett 2 Jan 2013 16:10:09 12,771 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @elstoof You mention opportunity a lot, I'm curious if you mean it in an American Dream sense or that class boundaries aren't as rigid as they once were or something else entirely?

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:10:50 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It's no different then buying a car then having to pay tax on the income when you sell it. Same money, taxed twice.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:10:56 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 16:11:33
    Just pin a post dated check to yourself and tell them to cash it in before they tell anyone you're dead.
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 16:12:57 5,281 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Meanwhile, there's a vast sea of people out there who fall somewhere in the middle of these two very extreme examples.
    It's hardly extreme - all throughout the Christmas period people were talking about lower consuming spending as everyone has less cash floating around.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 16:13:59
    kalel wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    But - imo of course - it should be touched.
    Can you explain why, if it's earning I've already paid tax on?
    Afraid I can't add more to what has already been explained. You may - or may not with appreciation - have paid tax, but your children haven't. Ultimately, it is a principle point to me - which with all the bloody loop holes in place is all we really have left to argue about. I don't believe such a large sum of money should be moved from person to person without being touched. Especially not when the receiver has done nothing to earn it (in the case of inheritance).
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:16:44 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LB's Tax Solution:

    Taxes should be graduated.

    Income tax should be zero until significantly above the subsistance level.

    The highest tax threshold should be set at a low earnings rate and be low, rather than set at a high earnings rate and be high.

    Windfall taxes should only kick in at a high level and should be tied to some kind of index (property prices best).

    CGT on your PPR should be transferred, ie your children, grandchildren etc should be able to sell without CGT so long as you've always lived there.

    Unsecured Government loans should be widely available, with interest payable and repayment schedule tied to income (broader version of student loans).

    VAT should be narrowed to truly 'luxury' goods.

    Vote LB in 2015.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:17:13 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Just pin a post dated check to yourself and tell them to cash it in before they tell anyone you're dead.
    ...and keep your death a secret for 7 years?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 16:18:32 7,000 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Khanivor Absolutely, you should contribute more if you have more. You shouldn't be burgled by the state at every opportunity however. On the point of 60k handbags, to a degree they do drive an economy. Some of the biggest companies in the world are luxury goods conglomerates, LVMH, Richemont and they like, and if you look at France as an example, these luxury brands drive tourism in a big way as it all adds to the aspirational appeal for visitors. People want to go to Faubourg St Honore to see the Hermés shop, they don't want to go to a Primark factory in Bangladesh though.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 16:18:45
    Yes.

    Edited by Aargh. at 16:19:00 02-01-2013
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:18:58 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I think the tax should be set at a much higher threshold, and have a range of exemptions for property ownership, (I would like to see the grand estates remain viable; 60 million vanity new builds, on the other hand, should be taxed to fuckery and back).

    I'd be interested to hear of any nation that has had its economy severely impacted by the sole act of raising taxes on the wealthiest people of that land. It's something we hear a lot about but, in the US at least, the opposite has been the effect. As in, the lower the taxes on the wealthy the slower the economy tends to grow. Not to mention the now revolting levels of income and wealth disparity.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:23:06 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    I think the tax should be set at a much higher threshold, and have a range of exemptions for property ownership, (I would like to see the grand estates remain viable; 60 million vanity new builds, on the other hand, should be taxed to fuckery and back).

    I'd be interested to hear of any nation that has had its economy severely impacted by the sole act of raising taxes on the wealthiest people of that land. It's something we hear a lot about but, in the US at least, the opposite has been the effect. As in, the lower the taxes on the wealthy the slower the economy tends to grow. Not to mention the now revolting levels of income and wealth disparity.
    France. The threat of the 75% tax rate has led to the LVMH principle owner (who's name escapes me) and Gerard Deperdieu (lifetime French tax payments of €200m) both emigrating.

    And why do you want to see grand estates remain viable and in private hands, except that you enjoyed Downton Abbey?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:23:19 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    @Khanivor Absolutely, you should contribute more if you have more. You shouldn't be burgled by the state at every opportunity however. On the point of 60k handbags, to a degree they do drive an economy. Some of the biggest companies in the world are luxury goods conglomerates, LVMH, Richemont and they like, and if you look at France as an example, these luxury brands drive tourism in a big way as it all adds to the aspirational appeal for visitors. People want to go to Faubourg St Honore to see the Hermés shop, they don't want to go to a Primark factory in Bangladesh though.
    Global sales of luxury goods to rise to $277 billion. Global output, about $75 trillion. I don't thin at the fraction of a single percent you can say luxuries drive very much at all, actually.

    And if luxury brands are a mainstay of the French economy then how do you square that with France's historically high taxation on high incomes? Surely France would be one of the last places on the planet that would have a thriving luxury good market if high taxation killed the ability of the rich to afford such things.
  • monkman76 2 Jan 2013 16:23:48 4,175 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    What you wrote on the previous page is actually a very good argument in FAVOUR of inheritance tax:

    I don't think things should just be handed from one to the other in this day an age, where you can become wealthy in other ways or with a good idea. Aren't something like 80% of the worlds millionaires self made?
    I'm pretty sure it's why inheritance tax exists in the US: the principle that anyone can make themselves a millionaire without needing handouts - including those from daddy.
  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 16:24:22 4,166 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It's just that here in Belgium, the rich people that I know all worked their arse off all their lives, or took huge risks with the money they had.
    It might be different in the UK, but I'm not stuck with that mental picture of a millionaire sitting by his pool sipping champagne.
    But I always heard you guys still have a more emphasised upper/lower class system.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:25:55 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    France. The threat of the 75% tax rate has led to the LVMH principle owner (who's name escapes me) and Gerard Deperdieu (lifetime French tax payments of €200m) both emigrating.

    And why do you want to see grand estates remain viable and in private hands, except that you enjoyed Downton Abbey?
    So two people leaving from the fifth largest economy in the world is proof that economy is suffering from high tax rates?

    The estates are cultural and historical heritage. Plus they look nice. Having them brought to ruin purely to tax their owners seems like the very epitome of the punish-the-rich-for-being-rich form of taxation you so abhor.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:26:08 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:

    And if luxury brands are a mainstay of the French economy then how do you square that with France's historically high taxation on high incomes? Surely France would be one of the last places on the planet that would have a thriving luxury good market if high taxation killed the ability of the rich to afford such things.
    The French have very strong high end brands internationally. I'll do some digging and see if I can find out how many bottles of Hennessey or Chanel handbags are sold in France vs (say) the US.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:28:53 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Yes, but then why are they still operating out of France? You keep telling us how high taxes will push the economic drivers to move out of the country yet even with much of their business no doubt involved in export they still operate out of France and its despotically high taxation. It's almost as if there were some other benefits to living/operating from a country in addition to simple tax rates.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:29:58 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    The estates are cultural and historical heritage. Plus they look nice. Having them brought to ruin purely to tax their owners seems like the very epitome of the punish-the-rich-for-being-rich form of taxation you so abhor.
    If they are our heritage, let's all enjoy them through National Trust etc, rather than leave them behind high fences and locked gates. I suppose you'd rather all art was in privcate hands too?

    And while I am not a fan of punishing the rich for being rich, I think inheritance tax is something else. More like punishing the greedy for being greedy, or recognising that the wealth of an individual is as much a product of the society that supports him as his own industry, both of which are far more important that the contribution of those expecting to inherit by chance of birth.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:31:33 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Yes, but then why are they still operating out of France? You keep telling us how high taxes will push the economic drivers to move out of the country yet even with much of their business no doubt involved in export they still operate out of France and its despotically high taxation. It's almost as if there were some other benefits to living/operating from a country in addition to simple tax rates.
    The high tax rate in France is applied to individuals only (which BTW why it failed in the courts). If high tax rates were applied to businesses as well, you'd see the truly important ones, the multinationals, moving their head offices (and global taxable income) elsewhere, like WPP did moving from the UK to Ireland in (I think) 2009.

    Edit: typo.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 16:31:50 02-01-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:32:04 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    If we can fund the NT through the public purse so that it has enough money to buy all the estates at threat and maintain them then I think that's the better option. But if you don't like paying for people to have nursery care then I can't see you getting behind full public funding of the National Trust.
  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 16:33:32 9,249 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Yes, but then why are they still operating out of France? You keep telling us how high taxes will push the economic drivers to move out of the country yet even with much of their business no doubt involved in export they still operate out of France and its despotically high taxation. It's almost as if there were some other benefits to living/operating from a country in addition to simple tax rates.
    The high tax rate in France is applied to individuals only (which BTW why it failed in the courts). If high tax rates were applied to businesses as well, you'd see the truly important ones, the multinationals, moving their head offices (and global taxable income) elsewhere, like WPP did moving from the UK to Ireland in (I think) 2009.

    Edit: typo.
    Corporate tax in France is 33% isn't it? As opposed to 22% odd in the UK.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:33:54 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    So the owners and operators of France's luxury good brands don't get paid? Because if they got paid then they would be taxed then surely they would want to move.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 16:34:29 7,000 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    @elstoof You mention opportunity a lot, I'm curious if you mean it in an American Dream sense or that class boundaries aren't as rigid as they once were or something else entirely?
    Do class boundaries even still exist? I can't say I've ever liked at anyone and considered what class they might fall into, and how that would affect my opinion of them. I suppose I meant it more in the American dream sense, where people like that Cambridge Bag Company woman can turn £600 startup fund into a multi million pound company in a few years.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:34:33 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    If we can fund the NT through the public purse so that it has enough money to buy all the estates at threat and maintain them then I think that's the better option. But if you don't like paying for people to have nursery care then I can't see you getting behind full public funding of the National Trust.
    That isn't how the NT works. Estates are gifted in return for their agreement to maintain them, the previous owners retain the right to live there, and often the NT is able to run the estate efficiently enough to provide a sizeable chunk of the upkeep cost from rents and fee income.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:36:08 43,814 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    So the owners and operators of France's luxury good brands don't get paid? Because if they got paid then they would be taxed then surely they would want to move.
    Not sure I understand. Hollande has declared a new 75% tax on individuals. As a result wealthy individuals (who repviously paid French tax, bought French goods in French shops etc) are moving away. This is counterproductive.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:36:22 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'm sure the National Trust will be relived to learn that they have no funding problems and can spend all the money they want on maintaining the nation's cultural heritage :)
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 16:38:08 5,281 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Not sure I understand. Hollande has declared a new 75% tax on individuals. As a result wealthy individuals (who repviously paid French tax, bought French goods in French shops etc) are moving away. This is counterproductive.
    Only when taken in isolation - depends on whether we're just talking a small handfulls of people or a mass brain drain.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 16:38:13 7,000 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @monkman76 the big difference is one of these is given, the other is taken from you.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:38:52 40,535 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    So the owners and operators of France's luxury good brands don't get paid? Because if they got paid then they would be taxed then surely they would want to move.
    Not sure I understand. Hollande has declared a new 75% tax on individuals. As a result wealthy individuals (who repviously paid French tax, bought French goods in French shops etc) are moving away. This is counterproductive.
    Higher tax rates are supposed to push wealth creators away. If the individual rate is high, and your entire board is going to see a tax increase, then why aren't entire companies being moved elsewhere?

    A low rate of business tax might leave more money in the company but really, at the end of the day, what's solely important for owners and operators is how much money they have in their pockets, yeah?
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply