Help Changes to UK tax system

[MYstIC G]

Failure of imagination here is staggering.

Glad none of you are running for office

Problem with imagination is it isn't real.

 

[Scouse]

Problem with imagination is it isn't real.

Neither were atoms, aeroplanes, viruses & bacteria, evolution, quantum mechanics, the internet, anything you can fucking mention.

It all stems from imagination. Then you make it happen. Of course...

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

I can list other intellectual giants on the subject of imagination if you *really* want me to, Meg

 

[old.Tohtori]

Neither were atoms, aeroplanes, viruses & bacteria, evolution, quantum mechanics, the internet, anything you can fucking mention.

Ghosts, yeti, werewolves, vampires? Cool!

 

[Moriath]

Neither were atoms, aeroplanes, viruses & bacteria, evolution, quantum mechanics, the internet, anything you can fucking mention.

It all stems from imagination. Then you make it happen. Of course...



I can list other intellectual giants on the subject of imagination if you *really* want me to, Meg

They were still real just not made yet. Atoms have always existed. It's why all of those were step changes building one on another. Not huge leaps in imagination.. Internet didn't appear before arpa net. Which wasn't there before mainframes and inter continental links.

It's evolution on thinking rather than imagination IMO. With interpretation or course.

 

[Scouse]

They were still real just not made yet.

Just like economic systems.

Systemic change is real change that's just not been done yet. It happens all the time.

 

[SilverHood]

No one has suggested flat rate taxes applied before loopholes and what not? 1% of your income is taxed, no loop holes, no exceptions.
Secondly, apply a property tax for non UK residents who own property that isn't their primary residence worth more than 1 million, at 20% of property value, no loopholes, no exemptions, unless you also pay your income tax in the UK. See above. This ends the buying of real estate in London as an investment.

Then you just start lowering the normal taxes while the flat rate goes up, until eventually, you end up somewhere around 20% flat rated and the rest in loophole land that doesn't apply to most PAYE plebs anyway.

 

[Moriath]

Just like economic systems.

Systemic change is real change that's just not been done yet. It happens all the time.

No economic systems were an invention of man. To make society. Etc. atoms were atoms from the Big Bang. Just not discovered yet.

 

[ileks]

Secondly, apply a property tax for non UK residents who own property that isn't their primary residence worth more than 1 million, at 20% of property value, no loopholes, no exemptions, unless you also pay your income tax in the UK. See above. This ends the buying of real estate in London as an investment.

They currently pay capital gains tax (28%) on profits and stamp duty at I believe 5%.

 

[Hawkwind]

No one has suggested flat rate taxes applied before loopholes and what not? 1% of your income is taxed, no loop holes, no exceptions.
Secondly, apply a property tax for non UK residents who own property that isn't their primary residence worth more than 1 million, at 20% of property value, no loopholes, no exemptions, unless you also pay your income tax in the UK. See above. This ends the buying of real estate in London as an investment.

Then you just start lowering the normal taxes while the flat rate goes up, until eventually, you end up somewhere around 20% flat rated and the rest in loophole land that doesn't apply to most PAYE plebs anyway.

Income Tax, UK is not America. There are not that many loop holes in the income tax laws. Agree though that a flat rate of tax is a fair system. It would also keep money in the UK instead of rich people/their money and business moving abroad. Dyson was a good example of this.

20% tax on the value of property for non UK residents will mean one thing only, no property owned by non UK residents, including me. I work abroad, but still kept my house and have purchased other properties for the purposes of rent. I would probably have to sell up completely and put my money outside the UK to avoid further tax on it. One of the properties is valued around 1 mill. Collectively more the double that. I currently pay UK tax on the rental income and that money stays in the UK. Unless your end game is to drop London prices by a huge percentage affecting all home owners with mortgages then I'm not sure why you would do this. It was actively encouraged by the government who made this easier in the 90's.

 

[Scouse]

No economic systems were an invention of man

Are you retarded? So are aeroplanes. And they're real, aren't they? First man imagined them, then he made them happen. Just like economic systems - which are definitely real.

Don't open your mouth if you can't make logical sense m8.

 

[Bodhi]

I knew this would be your argument.

It's retarded outdated 18th Century thinking and shows a total lack of understanding of human motivation.

Branson does it because he enjoys it. There's a handful of money counters - but successful people do it because they enjoy the challenge of what they do.

They wouldn't stop. They could happily work to provide money for a Bill & Melinda Gates style foundation which gives anything above 100 million back to the society they earned their money off. Doesn't have to go back to the state necessarily.


And whilst you're at it - inheritance tax of 100% for anything over five million*. Your kids should be comfortable but they should have to work for their living rather than generations of self-entitled arseholes who're living off granddaddy's wealth and running businesses that they had no hand in helping build whilst making billions in investment profits on money that they never earned in the first place.



*Edit: And that'd land us the billions that the Queen and her family of inbreds have sat earning them even more money.

Keep the Queen, the Royal Family. They can have their titles. But the wealth that they've got locked up should be doing good. And at £100 million per person wealth cap they'd still be a billionaire family.

It'd also give an incentive for rich people to have loads of kids - if their wealth has given them a fantastic level of education, better health, a better outlook on life and better manners then we need these people to be breeding like rugrats to counter the bazillions of chavs that are pumping them out

So basically, I'm not rich, so I don't see why anyone else should be either.

Personally I don't really see why there should be a hard limit of $100 million, that's not really going to encourage people to work their asses off, set up a massively successful company, and employ a shedload of people, if the do gooders in charge are going to take everything and above of 100 million away from you. That will send them all to another country to set up there, and create jobs there.

I don't actually think the current tax system is too out of kilter - maybe increase the 40 percent rate so less people are paying it, increases the tax free allowance a bit so less people pay tax overall. My focus would be on the outgoings rather than tax personally - take an axe to grossly incompetent and ineffecient public sector management (not the front line services, but the 17 managers they each have telling them what to do), actually get rid of the quangos and stop people taking the piss with welfare. You know, like the Tories said they were actually going to do before getting saddled in a coalition with the lentil knitters.

I think we really need to disconnect this concept our equality of outcome from equality of opportunity. Yes, I believe every human being should have the opportunity to make shitloads of cash and make a good life for themselves. But should they have this handed to them on a plate? No. That is a fucking ridiculous idea. Like most of the idealistic socialist ranting you here these days.

 

[Scouse]

So basically, I'm not rich, so I don't see why anyone else should be either.

Clearly not.

So basically, I didn't bother reading the rest of your diatribe because if that's your opening gambit...

 

[Bodhi]

Clearly not.

So basically, I didn't bother reading the rest of your diatribe because if that's your opening gambit...

Your loss "m8".

 

[Scouse]

Your loss "m8".

Gwan then. Oh, quelle surprise!:

Predictable, un-transformative, oft-repeated, old-hat shite that's been bandied around for decades to zero effect whatsoever

Keep your status-quo Bodhi. Keep your American-style dream of potential riches, because that's all you (and they) have - dreams of riches.

I'll continue to argue for a better world. A world where you can still be filthy rich, but one that doesn't fuck everyone over for generations in the process.

 

[Scouse]

Absolutely amazing. Deaf woman hears for the first time.


Wish we had more money for research eh?

 

[Bodhi]

Gwan then. Oh, quelle surprise!:




I'll continue to argue

Quelle Surprise!

I do actually know some of these filthy rich lot you seem to dislike so much, and tbh, they're normal people just like you and me. However unlike you and me, they create employment for tens of thousands of people worldwide and their tax contribution still dwarves that of you and me. However they have taken the risk of setting up a global company and all that entails, why shouldn't they get the rewards they've worked for.

Your misguided view of utopia sounds awfully like what they've tried to bring in in France with the 75% top tax band, and that's going really well. So well in fact, all the rich French people are leaving the country! And their total tax take is nose diving! Gr8! Any more daft ideas Mr Hollande?

Whilst your ideas might sound very worthy I still think they're rooted far too much in idealism - try to squeeze those at the top (who pay most of the tax), they'll just fuck off to another country and pay them some tax instead. Try to squeeze the companiees they run too much and they'll fuck off too, leaving us with nowhere to buy stuff.

As mentioned, leave the tax take as is, just make some proper cuts on what we're spending to get the deficit down. Cutting overseas aid to countries with active nuclear weapons programs would be a good start....

 

[Scouse]

I do actually know some of these filthy rich lot you seem to dislike so much

So do I. And I don't dislike them.

And funny enough they'd do what they do anyway. Past a certain amount of money the lifestyle doesn't make a difference. But they're not going to just "give it away" - to do that is not to act like most humans tbh. They'd need to see structural changes so there's a level playing field.

Yours is the argument of the same tired old shit and the same status quo. I'll ask the same question - justify more than £100million of personal wealth when that wealth (which was generated from the productivity of loads of people) could transform the lives of millions - as opposed to not make much difference to the lifestyle of a single person.

Did you even look at the link? No, of course not.

 

[Scouse]

Try to squeeze the companiees

Not advocating that. Get your facts straight.

try to squeeze those at the top (who pay most of the tax)

Warren Buffet - self made billionaire - his statement is that it's immoral that his secretary pays a higher proportion of her wages in tax than him.

I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office

They're NOT being squeezed. Not for a second.



Your ideas are simplistic, horribly flawed and the same old standard shit that's rolled out ad infinitum. Change your thinking...

 

[Bodhi]

So do I. And I don't dislike them.

And funny enough they'd do what they do anyway. Past a certain amount of money the lifestyle doesn't make a difference. But they're not going to just "give it away" - to do that is not to act like most humans tbh. They'd need to see structural changes so there's a level playing field.

Yours is the argument of the same tired old shit and the same status quo. I'll ask the same question - justify more than £100million of personal wealth when that wealth (which was generated from the productivity of loads of people) could transform the lives of millions - as opposed to not make much difference to the lifestyle of a single person.

Did you even look at the link? No, of course not.

Nope I didn't. As I saw the story on Breakfast news this morning. Lovely story, but I fail to see the relevance if this is going on already?

 

[Scouse]

Lovely story, but I fail to see the relevance

Really? You fail to see the relevance?? Really?


Are you that blind? What the fuck is wrong with people?!


Edit: Just one, of millions of horrible examples (picked at random from a single google search). All of which could, and should, change through the mild and temporary inconveniencing of a tiny tiny amount of people with more wealth than most of the rest of the world put together.

 

[Bodhi]

Your ideas are simplistic, horribly flawed and the same old standard shit that's rolled out ad infinitum. Change your thinking...

That's nice m8. Your ideas are horribly idealistic, pretty much unworkable in the real world, and mostly bollocks. I'll change my thinking if you change yours, k?

 

[Raven]

Your ideas are simplistic, horribly flawed and the same old standard shit that's rolled out ad infinitum. Change your thinking...

So are yours tbh... LIke I asked you before...how would you work it? Say someone has bang on 100 million in cash and assets and they buy a bit of art for, lets say 20 million. 5 years later it is worth 40 million. What would they do then? Pay the government the 20 million due to the increase in value? What happens if in another 5 years that bit of art is down valued to 20 million again, do they get a rebate from the government?

It becomes even more retarded when you have a privately owned company that fluctuates in value. What happens then? Does the person keep giving and taking away from the government.

Income should be taxed/restricted, not assets...that's if you want to go down some batshit crazy direction.

 

[Scouse]

That's nice m8. Your ideas are horribly idealistic, pretty much unworkable in the real world, and mostly bollocks. I'll change my thinking if you change yours, k?

Disagree. The idea is simple, relatively easy to implement and doesn't suffer from your "oh they'll all flee" shite scenario.

Banking is global, you can stop money being transferred out of a country. A lot of the wealth that's owned isn't in transferable form (like the Duchy of Cornwall owning huge tracts of land, or billions of pounds of wealth-generating real estate in London being owned by a couple of private individuals).

You want more than £100 million cash? Then fuck off somewhere else if you can. Live in somalia, or Kasakstan or some island in the pacific, and be denied entry back into the country you came from, where your friends are, where your family lives.

Plus - one world government is coming Bodhi. Like it or not (and I can't wait for it tbh). Where you gonna run to then?

 

[Scouse]

@Raven - those are functional aspects that can be worked on. They're not insurmountable obstacles at all.

Edit: On your work of art - you might find that people with personal wealth of 100 million pounds wouldn't bid 40 million on that piece of art (all art would clearly come down in price).

What you'd find instead is either companies being set up that make money from publically showing that art - which is great for the public, or that art going into the hands of museums and galleries - which again show the great works of art to the public.

Instead of them ending up in the foyer of a billionaire for only him and his billionaire friends to look at the whole world gets a shot. Win.

And they still get to fly a private jet and own houses in five different countries. Wow. What a life to aspire to eh?

 

[Bodhi]

Plus - one world government is coming Bodhi. Like it or not (and I can't wait for it tbh). Where you gonna run to then?

No it isn't. We are still years away from one European Government, never mind one world. People in the UK are getting fed up of Brussels already, and I won't even go there on the Scots fed up of Westminster. It's a pipe dream, unlikely to ever happen, as what works well for the US, won;t necessarily work well in the Philippines. As ever, socialist dogma fails the real world test.

Having spent some time studying Change Management, and indeed a bit of Economics, I can tell you that the widespread changes you want to see will never happen. Sorry, but they won't, people are too resistant to change as it is. Tweak the status quo a bit so we aren't paying for Cheerleading Diversity Officers in Rochdale, or pissing billions a year up the wall trying to change the fucking weather, and we'd be 100 times better off then where we are now.

 

[MYstIC G]

This is all bullshit tbfh because:

• It's no longer about suggestions for someones assistance
• The way to increase tax receipts is to increase the amount of money available to be taxed, i.e. to encourage money into the country. Tax increases don't do that. Country needs a sensible tax system with sensible limits as well, anything over 50% as a tax is completely rediculous simply on the principle of "why the fuck should I make more money for someone else I keep myself".

 

[Scouse]

anything over 50% as a tax is completely rediculous simply on the principle of "why the fuck should I make more money for someone else I keep myself".

Only people who have wealth levels such that income differences would change their lifestyles think like that...

 

[Raven]

How many years did you avoid (evade!) paying your fair of tax btw?

 

[Bodhi]

Only people who have wealth levels such that income differences would change their lifestyles think like that...

No, that's due to the one thing you keep overlooking, and the one reason why your ideas are bunkum - human nature.

 

[MYstIC G]

Only people who have wealth levels such that income differences would change their lifestyles think like that...

Actually my human instinct of fairness makes me think like that, if I was me and you were the taxman and I climbed a tree to get some fruit then if you asked me to chuck you one as well I'd think "meh, might as well as I'm up here" if I got down from the tree with the fruit and you nicked it all off me except one piece I'd think "you cunt, you can go fuck yourself".

The tax burden should be loaded towards taking more from those who can afford it but "you cant have this" or "you can only keep that" won't ever work.