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.
Quote from: warmonke on March 18, 2023, 12:08:21 pmQuote from: petejh on March 18, 2023, 11:02:29 amthe 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.
Quote from: petejh on March 18, 2023, 11:02:29 amthe 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.
the free representation of the views of all the people who don't agree with it.
Quote from: Will Hunt on March 18, 2023, 12:46:54 pmQuote from: warmonke on March 18, 2023, 12:08:21 pmQuote from: petejh on March 18, 2023, 11:02:29 amthe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"It’s no surprise that all those above calling for massive inheritance tax increases are not parents." - JB
"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
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 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.