[petejh]

Read the last thousand words on death tax.

[seankenny]

I think in abstract theory you’re definitely not correct - because £1 owned is worth the same £1 whatever its source, whether a pound in savings or a pound in earnings, or a pound in valuation of illiquid assets. It’s the ‘mutability of money’ as you know.

And the effects of lowering tax take at one point in the cycle (income) would have the effect of raising the money available to be taxed at another point (savings, illiquid assets and all other wealth owned at time of death).

Whether it’s realistic to raise a lot from IHT is more doubtful. In part because of attitudes. Attitudes can always change though.

I’m not saying £1 is worth a different amount depending on its source. I’m saying there are fewer pounds to tax in estates at death than there are from earnings in the labour market. People consume more than they save, and run down some of their savings in retirement.

I’m struggling to see how a tax that currently raises 0.25% of GDP can substantially replace one that raises nearly 17% of GDP, but clearly I am lacking in imagination. The paucity of tax to be raised here combined with its high political salience is why politicians tend not to fiddle with it, it’s just not worth the hassle.

[sdm]

the free representation of the views of all the people who don't agree with it.

Pretty poor take; 'all the people who don't agree with it' being the ultra-rich media barons who own the press?

I think it'd be pretty hard to argue against the role that the right-wing media and associated sketchy think tanks and their insidious rhetoric has on influencing public opinion.

I agree with Pete on this. As much as you may not like it, the right wing press is a representation of people's views as much as it is an influence on them. The Daily Mail doesn't sell newspapers to people who don't agree with what they say.

The vast majority of people are compassionate and kind to those they know and care about. A lot of people, enough to significantly influence national politics (most or nearly most?), don't care very much at all about people who they don't know or who they feel are "other" to them. I think you have to understand and accept that if you want to understand people's political views without leaning on conspiracy theories about how a few individuals mind-control millions of people via the free press.

I think you underestimate the importance of the media in shaping people's views and in othering the others in the first place.

[petejh]

Sean, it’s not that difficult to understand surely?

You seem to be failing to understand, or failing to acknowledge this:

£1 not taxed at the point of income is £1 available to be used elsewhere by its owner. But it remains in ‘the system’, because it’s immutable.

Therefore that £1 remains available to be taxed at various points in its life cycle.

It can only be used a certain number of ways:
It can be used on consumption (at this point it can be taxed), on accumulating non-cash assets to be held; or saved in cash. Ignore buying black market drugs/assets which are untaxed.

So in theory you can adjust the tax take to be applied at different points along the cycle of the £1. And if you take less tax from it early in its cycle, then there’s more a available to be taxed at other points in its cycle - either at the point of consumption, or at the point of asset sales, or at the point of the death of its owner.

Ignoring inflation obvs - where £1 erodes in purchase power over time so there’s also a time value of money as well as imutability.

A lot of this ultimately comes down to the unanswerable philosophical question of who you want to allow to have the power to make the decision on how the £1 that you own ends up being spent - do you want more say on how it’s used or do you want the government to have more say on how your money gets used. Clearly some needs to go to the state for services. The proportions, and when in your lifetime, isn’t in theory as dogmatically fixed as you’re portraying.

[Will Hunt]

the free representation of the views of all the people who don't agree with it.

Pretty poor take; 'all the people who don't agree with it' being the ultra-rich media barons who own the press?

I think it'd be pretty hard to argue against the role that the right-wing media and associated sketchy think tanks and their insidious rhetoric has on influencing public opinion.

I agree with Pete on this. As much as you may not like it, the right wing press is a representation of people's views as much as it is an influence on them. The Daily Mail doesn't sell newspapers to people who don't agree with what they say.

The vast majority of people are compassionate and kind to those they know and care about. A lot of people, enough to significantly influence national politics (most or nearly most?), don't care very much at all about people who they don't know or who they feel are "other" to them. I think you have to understand and accept that if you want to understand people's political views without leaning on conspiracy theories about how a few individuals mind-control millions of people via the free press.

I think you underestimate the importance of the media in shaping people's views and in othering the others in the first place.

It's a two-way street. There are lots of examples from history where mass media has been used to whip up hate. The seeds of those ideas have to land in fertile soil to take root. Lots and lots of people just do not like those who are different to them. This is, in part, because people struggle to comprehend the world beyond their own experience.

[seankenny]

Think of tax as the state’s claim on productive activity. You’re arguing that an individual will save a proportion of their income (their individual claim on output) and then after many years, the government will tax this, and that this could produce similar revenue as taxing the output as it’s produced all along. It can’t, because people save a small proportion of their income, and many people save almost nothing. Value is also destroyed, at least in part by depreciation, which means a further claim on current output just to stand still. The overall output is much bigger than the amount saved, which is what you’re taxing with IHT.

I clearly don’t have a problem with higher inheritance tax, just the idea that it could possibly replace income taxes to a large extent. This may be dogmatic or whatever, but there are good reasons why all advanced states rely on income taxation to fund their activities. It’s accessible, regular and less damaging to further growth than, say, import taxes.

[petejh]

I can see the flaws that you describe and I agree you can’t totally replace income tax nor was I saying you could.
But one of the flaws wouldn’t be ‘have to wait many years for the tax revenue’. Unless people stopped dying in the usual huge numbers every day? Wouldn’t the time lag be non-existent? Because in a system where a changeover was underway to increased IHT, you’d start taking >IHT at day n and for a short time, an unfortunate cohort of dead folk would in effect suffer double taxation (legacy income tax, plus increased IHT). From then on, the revenue stream would be constant.

Also, the whole pension tax system works on the basic principle of long-term deferred tax take, as discussed earlier up thread. You pay £100 into your pension, get £20 or £40 tax benefit. Then 50 years later you pay the £20/£40 tax back when you start withdrawing my the pension money.
So deferral clearly isn’t a reason a large-scale taxation system can’t work.

[Stabbsy]

Also, the whole pension tax system works on the basic principle of long-term deferred tax take, as discussed earlier up thread. You pay £100 into your pension, get £20 or £40 tax benefit. Then 50 years later you pay the £20/£40 tax back when you start withdrawing my the pension money.

Except it doesn’t work like this. I’m currently getting £40 tax benefit per £100, but I’m not going to pay 40% tax on all/any of my pension, so yes there’s deferral but there’s also a tax benefit to higher rate payers.

[seankenny]

I’m not arguing that the deferral is a problem, merely saying that’s how it would work. The problem is that lots of people don’t accumulate many assets, and that their marginal propensity to consume is pretty high, so they would be unlikely to save the extra money from reducing income tax.

My basic scepticism that one can do a great deal with IHT stems from the fact it currently represents 1/156th of overall taxation. Double it, triple it, times it by ten, whatever. I struggle to see how it would replace much of anything.

[petejh]

I think you missed the point of my post Stabbsy. Which was to give an example of a large scale tax system that uses deferred payment.

[Johnny Brown]

Pete, it wouldn’t work because you can’t spend income tax. They take it before you get it. Everyone expecting 100% IHT would spend like mad in an attempt to leave nothing. Not only would this require taxing the spending instead, maybe via a massive hike in VAT, this would be much harder to approach progressively as taxing ‘luxury’ spending equitably is a lot harder than taxing luxury income. So your already small take would now be limited to those who die earlier than they expected, plus you’d also have state costs for those who live longer than they expect but run out of cash. And, as I mentioned last time, not only old people die. Are you making orphans homeless too, or the single daughter turned carer who gave up her own life to look after a disabled parent?

It’s no surprise that all those above calling for massive inheritance tax increases are not parents. And the guy who had a good year playing with stocks wishes he didn’t get taxed at all. The one thing you can rely on in a tax debate is that everyone thinks someone else should be paying them.

I think a better approach would have been to make a pension contribution exception for the types of workers who we would prefer to keep working, i.e. senior medics etc. People whose income is high but based on actual direct contribution to society, not scaled by running a business or unearned income from investing. Increase taxes on those instead.

[petejh]

Plenty of things in there I agree with, and plenty I don’t

The guy having a good year on stocks should be using ISA’s btw to avoid any CGT (or rather any double taxation - tax at the usual rates having already been paid on income used for investing).

The sideswipe of ‘unearned income’ is noted.

The idea of doctors getting the pension tax breaks while other professions don’t is hellish and bonkers imo, and leads to profession judgement.

And the idea of ‘productive contribution for society’ sounds wonderful, until you get into the weeds of it in a capitalist world - withdraw all investment money from the public markets tomorrow, then get back to me about how unproductive it all was now the worlds on fire and you’re broke, hungry and there’s no energy or services except for ‘the state’.

[Johnny Brown]

I didn’t state ‘doctors’. There is a staff issue that needs to be addressed, and there must be way of doing it that doesn’t involve handing out tax breaks to any and all high earners. If it is unfair to other professionals then that hopefully will make NHS careers more attractive too.

I don’t doubt you worked hard for your windfall but what did society gain? There’s a slight gain in the style of liquidity over a bank or fund perhaps? And how is it double taxation, the clue is in the name - Capital GAINS? I don’t begrudge anyone doing well but the sudden pivot towards never paying tax again isn’t a great look.

[petejh]

JB there isn't any 'pivot towards paying no tax. I think you're reading far too much between the lines of a ukb exchange.

There are well-established tax rules around ISA's, general trading accounts, SIPPs and other investment accounts, which those professionals you want to give beneficial pension treatment to will also undoubtedly be using along with half the rest of the country. I can assure you I've paid an awful lot of tax both over the course of 31 years of virtually full time employment (well the last 12 years were at 4-days per week giving me time to slack off and invest/climb etc, but still.. On any investment gains outside of an ISA or pension I continue to - last CGT bill was Jan 31st, next one is bigger and due next Jan.

[teestub]

I didn’t state ‘doctors’. There is a staff issue that needs to be addressed, and there must be way of doing it that doesn’t involve handing out tax breaks to any and all high earners.

I think this is what they did for judges as someone mentioned upthread, a quick google found an article from a couple of years ago with the BMA suggesting the same could be done for doctors https://www.gponline.com/pension-tax-solution-judges-shows-government-doctors-says-bma/article/1708515

BMA pensions committee chair Dr Vishal Sharma said the approach to changing judicial pensions - implemented with the express purpose of tackling concerns over recruitment and retention - showed that the government could do more to stop doctors being forced to limit their working hours or retire early to avoid pensions tax charges.

[Johnny Brown]

having paid more in capital gains tax in one year last year then I paid in cumulative income tax over the last 10 years of full-time paid work in a relatively high-paying job. I feel like I've paid more than my share of tax for one lifetime, much more than a typical citizen.

Not sure I’m reading between the lines. You think you’ve already paid more than your fair share and you think a better system would be to not pay any until you’re dead?

[petejh]

That's a surprisingly for you wankerish take, and comes across as a pretty shitty thing to post. You're normally reliably sensible and able to not jump to knee-jerk conclusions. But I'll give it a reply. 

Here's the full text of what I wrote - which I note you didn't link to, for what I said in context. Please show me where I state that, in your words, 'I think a better system would be to not pay any [more tax] until I'm dead'.

I think that you should find the energy and you should continue, and let us know the data for high earners proportional tax take versus comparator nations. Because the data for the high earners is absolutely central to your (your being 'the left wing') views on redistribution.

That isn't an attack of your viewpoint btw and I genuinely don't know the data. Just pointing out that it's always the high earners that the left targets. So it would be good if you posted with the same energy and level of research the same data for the higher tax bands that you just posted for the lower tax bands.   

For instance, I've often heard the top 1% to 20% of earners in the UK pay a huge proportion of the total tax take, but also the wealthiest tend to take 'income' from various sources outside of paid work - capital gains and dividends for e.g. which makes it harder to calculate. I have personal experience of this having paid more in capital gains tax in one year last year then I paid in cumulative income tax over the last 10 years of full-time paid work in a relatively high-paying job. I feel like I've paid more than my share of tax for one lifetime, much more than a typical citizen. And as a typical low-maintenance climber I have an extremely low footprint on society in terms of services used.

I also didn't say 'fair share' I said share. Very minor difference though admittedly - 'I feel like I've paid more than my share for one lifetime'.

Fairly sure we've all 'felt' like we've walked a thousand miles, 'felt' like we've eaten enough for ten people, or 'felt' like we were falling off that route 'for ever'. And said or written same. It's a turn of phrase JB, not a literal interpretation to mean 'That's it, I'm done with paying tax! I am never going to pay tax again in my life.'. For you to take what I wrote and interpret that to mean: 'a sudden pivot towards never paying tax again' is a massive jump.

I'd hope someone being reasonable and neutral would be able to see how unreasonable your interpretation is. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be happy with myself on reflection, if I'd trawled back through a forum to find that sentence and used it against someone in the way you have, and claimed to know their thoughts and intentions. 


edit: that's enough politics for a lifetime. 

[Nemo]

I think it's a bit unfortunate the IHT debate has ended up getting mixed up with a whole pile of other often unrelated stuff, a lot of which I don't agree with at all (yeah I know, it's an internet forum, that's what happens.)
In particular, having now read what the Tories have recently done with pensions, I'm with pretty much everyone else other than Pete on that one - it's a tax reduction for the extremely wealthy, something I don't support at all (as was the Tories previously raising the IHT threshold).

Also, when I've been referring to IHT, I have really meant it as a shorthand for a set of taxes that could prevent wealth being passed down generations, both during life and on death.  If it is just on death, then rather obviously, everyone will just pass nearly everything down before that point.

So, unlike Pete, I'm emphatically in favour of wealth taxes as well as IHT (read a range of taxes that prevent significant wealth being inherited), although you certainly have to be careful to avoid putting off investment in the UK (Brexit has so successfully done that though for the time being, that I'm not sure twiddling with taxes is going to make much difference to UK investment at this point).

Where I agree with Pete, along with at least the basic ideas on IHT, is that I don't think increasing income tax past where it is is a good idea.  (I certainly am not suggesting IHT is in any way going to replace it though).  There's plenty of young people without rich parents on upwards of 50K, who are emphatically not wealthy and are likely to still struggle to ever buy a decent home (after pension, tax, rent and bills in certain areas of the country, a 50K salary often doesn't leave a lot left).  To me, they shouldn't be the target of increasing taxes.  Whereas people with pension pots over a million pounds (pretty much all of whom no doubt own significant property too and so are likely multi millionaires) - most definitely should be. 

"It’s no surprise that all those above calling for massive inheritance tax increases are not parents." - JB

That may be factually true, but the implication is a million miles away from why I'm talking about this.
Indeed, what I'm suggesting would harm my own interests massively - I own a house, and I'm advocating a massive reduction in house prices relative to wages.  More than that, I'm one of the lucky ones who still has an EU passport, and so I'll likely be selling up and leaving the UK at some point, at which point any reduction in UK house prices will actually matter to me.  I ain't saying this stuff because I think it will benefit me in any way whatsoever.
I'm saying it because I genuinely think that in the last couple of decades we've effectively reverted to an aristocracy.  And that young people who aren't part of it are completely and utterly in despair.

As it happens, I read that Green party article on all this that you linked to recently.  And I pretty much agreed with all of the analysis in terms of the problems.
Not convinced that taxing the recipient is the best solution, but it could play a part.

"how do you stop the less economically beneficial mechanisms the very rich use to keep money in the family and away from tax (trusts, offshored, or worst case just leave the UK for tax purposes)" - Offwidth

That is certainly the key to the entire discussion, and why IHT has never been terribly successful before (and presumably why Sean thinks it will never have any chance of raising significant revenue).  And it's also one of the reasons why lots of not so wealthy people get grumpy with the thought of any kind of IHT, if they think that the rich will get away without paying it.
 
With cash, shares, companies and a whole pile of other things, it will certainly be extremely difficult (although I suspect not completely impossible given sufficient willing).  With property in the UK, I think it could be a lot more straightforward (although still involving significant changes in law).

The practical problem with getting any traction with any of this though, is that for the most part the people who vote are the people who own stuff.  And so when the Labour party do their focus groups, no doubt they are right that it would be massive vote loser.  At least with those who traditionally vote.

The longer time goes on though, the more young people without any chance of every owning a home increases, and the more I think there's a significant subset of the population that could become enthusiastic about voting if there was a political party willing to genuinely try to change the distribution of wealth in the country. 

Combine an element of the above (perhaps increasing over time, tweaking details as you go, and compensating those worst affected using some of the revenue generated), with a complete overhall of the planning system and a massive house building programme.  And maybe the changes in IHT wouldn't end up needing to be that extreme.  The aim to me at least, was never for IHT to replace income tax.  Perhaps to stop further income tax rises.  But primarily as one of a number of tools to try and ensure that all the property in the country doesn't forever stay in the hands of the subset of the countries families who currently have it.

Random aside, but to me at least, the Labour party currently seems terrified of saying pretty much anything.  They (probably rightly) have come to the conclusion that they can win the next election by largely keeping their mouths shut.  And that the last time they really opened their mouths (under Corbyn), what they said was as ridiculous as what Liz Truss was saying (ie: borrow shit loads of money and spend more on pretty much everything, vs borrow shit loads of money and reduce taxes on pretty much everything.)
So on the plus side, at least the current Labour leadership seem to have realised that being economically credible is a good starting point.
But I can't gather any kind of real enthusiasm for a Labour government (aside from being rid of the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg), unless they start setting out how they are actually going to change stuff. 

[ali k]

Please show me where I state that, in your words, 'I think a better system would be to not pay any [more tax] until I'm dead'.

He won’t be able to because that’s not what he said. There were two separate clauses in JB’s sentence, and you’ve added [more] in order to link them together.

It might be a turn of phrase to say you ‘feel’ like you’ve paid more than your share of tax for a lifetime. Especially when you consider yourself someone who doesn’t use public services that much and isn’t planning for kids. But however you interpret it that still means on some level you personally think paying more tax in this lifetime would be unreasonable, despite being in the position to retire at 50. And you came on here to defend a tax break for the wealthiest few % in our society.

Your defence of this position seems to be that instead you’d prefer a system where you (and everyone else) give away most of our wealth when we die as a means to level opportunities at birth. But haven’t explained how you think this could ever be achieved in practice or how you’d muster the political will to make it happen.

And in the absence of your preferred system, you think in the meantime taxes should be lowered for the highest earners, thereby pushing more money into the hands of the people you think should ultimately be giving it away?!

[petejh]

Nemo has said it a million times more eloquently than me, but he's nailed pretty much exactly what I think about how the tax system could be far better. I wasn't intending to make a case that IHT should 'only' be fixed to apply after death, obviously whatever works best is the best method of doing it which was why I said call it whatever you like and think about it in flexible terms.

The general point I was trying to make was a tax on wealth near or after end of life which prevents passing on excessive levels of wealth into families over generations to the detriment of everyone else. But Nemo did a far better job than me of keeping it coherent. 

The ability for people to buy their own property is a big part of it for me and it's a market that's clearly been negatively impacted by unearned generational wealth pouring in to buy property as a safe asset. I noticed it when I came back from Canada after 4 years away from the UK, and prices accelerated thereafter when ultra low-interest rates came in following the GFC 2008. Housing is one of the most important basic needs, and the housing market is a classic example to me of a market in need of strong protections against the forces of capitalism. Especially in a market as tight as the UK's. I don't think it should ever have been allowed to become turned into an investor's paradise the way it has - I've long made the case on here against buy-to-let landlords and people planning their wealth management around the principle of buying multiple properties.

Go and invest in run-down deserted villages in deprived areas and reinvigorate them, if you claim to so strongly believe in the good to society of property investment. Or take the much bigger risk of investing in companies that produce useful stuff that we all need... (and then expect to be pilloried by the mob for making any money on any of them).

Sad as it may be to many, people are incentivised by financial gain. They generally aren't incentivised to take economic risks by the idea of high taxes and societal redistribution, even if this essential for a good society. The potential benefit of adjusting where tax is taken from, and when, is that it has the potential to boost growth - which everyone acknowledges creates its own virtuous circle of higher tax take.  But I never claimed it would be simple.

[Johnny Brown]

Apologies Pete, clearly I struck a nerve a little harder than I intended. However please don't confuse it as a personal attack, that wasn't my intention at all, just robust debate. And you're right, you've never proposed no income tax, just less.

You statement on paying 'your share' did strike me as remarkable at the time, and I meant to pick up on it at the time but here we are. The 'trawl' took about 30 seconds. I don't think the context of the post adds much to it, but folk can decide that for themselves and agree I should have linked but its a pita on the ipad. I do think it adds context to your position on the last few pages of thread.

I can't see any sense in the idea of there being a fair share of tax that one can exceed paying (other than accidental over-payment). Perhaps you don't either, still it seems a weird thing to articulate. The more you make, the more you pay, the only way a cap would make sense would be if there was also a hard cap on total wealth and income.  As it is inequality is rising and that is driven as much by increases at the top end as stagnation at the bottom. I absolutely don't see that the current rates are injurious to ambition.

Perhaps the feel of it being excessive was because you got to realise the full gains before having to pay the tax? I have to pay 5 figure sums most months (not personal obvs) so am perhaps not as sensitive. I think I've already dismantled the argument for less income tax vs more IHT but this illustrates it too - the longer people get to keep the money the more they will perceive it as theirs, the harder they will fight to keep it/ spend it and the more time they will have to do it. As Sean states tax is a share of production and the closer the take is to the point of production the better it functions imo. Corporation tax seems like the obvious thing to increase but perhaps it's the last carrot in the bag post-Brexit, both it and the high rate of income tax are low by European standards.

I do think there should be some sort of tax breaks for people who spend their free time benefiting society. Only some people are motivated financially (less than is typically recognised imho) and such charitable acts are the free oil that keeps society working and mostly go unrecognised. I guess it would be too open to abuse but ideally this would include things like bolting and writing loss-making guidebooks etc. Likewise I've done a lot of free consultancy work over the years for conservation projects and you would think the tax system might encourage such somehow.

[kac]

Ali's post pretty much sums up my feelings. But I do pretty agree with what you have said there Pete. IHT needs reform just as CGT does, business rates and council tax. Wealth needs taxing more and work less. All political parties are too gutless/pragmatic to discuss the issues. With pensions surely there comes a point when it is not preparing for your retirement and it becomes wealth management and part of the iht avoidance game. I'd love to think the change is part of plan bringing pensions into the iht thresholds but under the Tories it won't be so it is just going to make it even easier to avoid IHT.

[James Malloch]

I understand that view, of course I do. But it isn't realistic just as 100% IHT isn't - which isn't what I think it should be btw.. 80-90% of any wealth above a relatively high cap - say £400k, inflation linked,  would do a great deal of good for society imo. It would leave the less wealthy to pass on their stash and level the field back against all the rich entitled kids every few generations. 
Redistribution from wages beyond a certain point, which we're virtually at imo, is also unrealistic. Who'd vote for it, who'd bother working beyond a certain wage, there's no incentives. So you'd need to go full communist and force people. It'd be completely shit way to live, and the services would still be crap!

I think we found the limits of communism, it's horrific. And are currently - as in this weekend and next week possibly - finding out the limits of the current debt based capitalism model based on ultra cheap money. Something new is required - we haven't tried the 'earn good money while you're alive pay it nearly all back once you're dead' model. It gets my vote for the next thing.

Looking at UK Gov figures for 21/22  (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary) it seems like, at the current level of £325k, only 23,000 deaths in the UK resulted in a IHT charge resulting in £6.1bn of tax receipts.

Assuming this is at the 40% IHT level that would mean a 100% tax would result in £15.25bn of IHT.

Obviously I’m sure there is a lot which wasn’t taxed due to loopholes etc. And if income tax was lowered then folk would have more money to save, so receipts may be higher.

In the same year the Income tax and NIC contributions were £312bn (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmrc-tax-and-nics-receipts-for-the-uk/hmrc-tax-receipts-and-national-insurance-contributions-for-the-uk-new-monthly-bulletin).

Surely you would never get close to getting enough in from IHT? Or would you just reduce it a bit to counter the IHT changes?

And yes, whilst it might reduce some inequalities wouldn't the higher personal income and, maybe, a rush to spend money before death just lead to inflation, which then exasperates inequality?

I don’t t know where i stand on this at all, and obviously any idea would have flaws, but im struggling to see how this one would work in practice. Especially if the rest of the world didn’t follow suit. What would stop people just moving abroad with their wealth?

As an aside we’re already the 4th highest in the OECD countries for IHT (https://taxfoundation.org/estate-and-inheritance-taxes-around-world/) and somewhere in the middle for Income tax.

[ali k]

Pete - I can’t imagine you’ll find anyone on this forum that doesn’t think the principle of what you and Nemo are suggesting isn’t a good idea (i.e. stopping vast wealth being handed down generations in perpetuity). Unless there’s a lurking aristocrat?

But pointing out a problem that realistically can’t be solved isn’t that helpful. Even after the country was bankrupted when virtually the whole planet went to war we didn’t solve it. There was some effort given to redistributing wealth more evenly, but it hasn’t exactly lasted long. Are we waiting for civilisations to collapse due to global warming as the stimulus to make it happen?

And don’t forget - you specifically came on here to defend a tax cut for the extremely wealthy.

[petejh]

JB the 'my share' was as I've already said a turn of phrase, perhaps clumsily on a public forum where anyone can dissect words and interpret meaning to their heart's content. Not a literal utterance supposed to mean 'I don't believe anyone should have to pay more than a certain amount per person'. What I do find interesting is the discussion with Nigel on that thread about who actually contributes most of the tax take, which is often forgotten by the mob when discussing high-earners.
I should give up posting really as I'm ill suited to having the patience or skill for choosing words so carefully that they can't be misinterpreted to mean something else. I don't agree that you've dismantled anything, your argument certainly doesn't come across as a dismantlement to me just a set of perfectly valid points for why something might not work, there is an equally valid set of points for why it could work.

And Ali you aged me by 3 years, I'm 47.