Topic: Poll on UK Wealth Tax (Read 1906 times)

I live in Peterborough, East Anglia, where we have our share of unemployment and one of the highest rates of immigration in the country.

First re. benefits: I do know to whom you were referring, and they do exist. My point was to emphasise just how much they are in a tiny minority. As I said, the vast majority of people who receive welfare are retired, disabled, working, or only temporarily unemployed, and only a small proportion of the long-term unemployed will be actively avoiding work. Why is this important? Because it is very difficult to tell the difference between some-one who is trying to get a job and some-one who isn't, especially given that they are all required to apply for 20+ jobs per week or lose their benefits. It is very difficult to tell the difference, and it would be immoral to stop supporting people who are genuinely in need because of the laziness of a few.

Most unemployed people are desperately trying to find a job (there are ~400k vacancies vs ~2.3m unemployed), but the "scroungers" are used by (e.g.) the right wing press as examples representative of the whole system - "if only they would all get off their arses the welfare bill would be cut in half!" - but in fact if every single unemployed person in the country got a minimum-wage job, the welfare bill would fall by ~3.3%. The unemployed are used as a scapegoat in an effort to distract people from the people who are really milking the system such as (as you rightly point out) the tax avoiders/evaders who cost the country £30bn+ (almost 20% of the entire welfare budget) each year.


Of course I understand your position, but why does your neighbour's child deserve to struggle just because they weren't lucky enough to have you as a parent? I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to make their lives easier, but tax should be paid by those who can afford it, and if you just inherited £1m that you didn't have to work for, you can definitely afford it.


I don't believe in increasing borrowing, I believe in eliminating tax avoidance and raising taxes on the wealthy in order to run a small surplus and pay down the debt. I think I've made this relatively clear.


This. Consumption taxes penalise the poor. Personally I think income taxes should be based on how much it costs to get by - I think there should be a flat tax (60% or more) on people's disposable income - i.e. raise the tax-free threshold so that nobody earning less than a living wage (say £20-25k) pays tax. This system would decrease tax for everyone earning less than ~£45k.

Yes - I see what you are saying - but I envisage a Consumption Tax being implemented in a wholly different way to our current VAT (which is an unfair tax that hits the poor disproportionately).

A CT would be related to your ability to pay (like any fair tax) - almost by definition. The more you consume the more you pay. The rate of the CT could be progressive also - that is, when you enter the realm of the consumption of expensive luxuries then the rate of CT rises accordingly.

The Germans (who have a strong economy/manufacturing base) apparently save around 10% of their disposable income - this has positive knock on effects (re. investment) for the whole German economy.
 The UK, by contrast, only manages to save circa 1% of their disposable income.

A Consumption Tax might, on top of everything else, manage to create a nation of savers - it would certainly encourage one.

But, as this is a BTC forum, the real advantage of a CT is with regard to fiscal policy/raising revenue in an economy where BTC constitutes a large amount of the transactions .
The real problem with an anonymous BTC (which the transactions will in time become) is raising taxation. It wouldn't be a problem with PAYE, Inheritance tax, VAT etc - but it would be a problem on income from self employment and corporation tax. An anonymous BTC would essentially enable a nationwide "cash in hand" economy.
   Enter Consumption Tax.

Consumption tax doesn't work because rich consume less in porpotion than poor... The income distribution is just too skewed for them to work and still get decent service. Or then the average folk need to gain huge negotiation power over those who have the capital...

I'm in undecided group, it's not that some assets like public debt couldn't be easily taxed or forfeited from rich, but in the end most of wealth is now speculative or immaterial like stocks... So cutting from this is not exactly workable if it leaves to liquidation of these assets to pay part of their value, thus plummeting the value...

OK - there has been 25 voters turned out in this particular poll, 2 of whom were undecided one way or the other.
A massive 68% are against a one off wealth tax on the wealthy in this BitcoinTalk poll - in contradistinction to the 74% in favour in the UK as polled by YouGov (2000 person representative sample presumably )

  What does this tell us about the voters in this particular online constituency ? What does it tell us about this particular poll ?


Listen folks - I mentioned it earlier, but I reckon a consumption tax might be a way forward if we are to have BTC as a contender in this crazy mixed up world .

   What do you all think ?


Or is it a case of no tax/Government/authority at all for you ? BTC being like a moral precept - a bit like "turn the other cheek" etc ??

It amuses me how people believe the bullshit over and over, particular the parts about how it's for their own good.

It always amuses me how states that are fiscally irresponsible because they've been throwing too much money towards special interests and buying votes end up taxing the people more to make up for their own idiocy. The day statesmen admit national debt is their fault is the day hell freezes over.

Actually, this is false if it is correctly stated.  Let me restate it and I would be then interested in your take on it.

For the bolded part...

"...all children should have equal opportunity to be successful even if it requires the nation to go further into debt..."

This is false because it takes from the children of the future to pay to the government-payees of today, SOME of whom are children.

Whether the correction is via default, progressive inflation or one time taxes, the correction still occurs and the future children are then impacted.

This idea of a 'one time tax' has been being floated by monetary authorities for a few years as a way to solve the debt problem - it's not just Britain.   And that it's a dumb idea doesn't mean they won't do it.  They've said they'd do things like the Cyprus haircut again, and they will.

It's not about what's good for you, but what's good for them.  You are just tax-cattle.

And every single time the rhetoric about "sock it to the filty rich" starts up, the ones that get slaughtered are the middle class, because that's where the bulk of the takables is.

5800 that was wasted, by the government not having scarfed it up.  In the eyes of those who want to take everything they can.

It would be a good idea if the government took it and then ceased to exist.

Our lot move to 'Murica   (FWIW I would never let the tax exiles back into the country)



Silver platters disincentivise hard work and entrepeneurship - silver platters pull against evolutionary benefit and strike at the heart of all that we ultimately deem moral and of value - check out the stats on social mobility , then get back to us  


    My grandfather died in 1989 having spent his entire working life at the coal mine. He was such a hard worker his nickname was "the Iron Man" (nothing to do with Stalin BTW). He was an intelligent man who could discuss with you articulately any subject you wished to raise - and this when the dissemination of information via the internet was but a dream.
     In his will he left £1k for each of his children (he had 5) and £100 for each of his grandchildren (he had 8 ) - he lived in council accomodation so had no property to call his own.

    Whats £5800 in todays money ?
      

Don't tax wealth - don't tax income - tax consumption.

I initially started thinking about this after I was trying to work out how to succesfully raise tax in a BTC economy (an anonymous BTC - and I do see the benefit/necessity (fungibility etc) of BTC transactions being anonymous).

What about young women who live of their children's benefits? It's a really profitable business just look at some Arab families.
Gypsies already found a way to profit, they never work but always manage somehow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V78QfxvTbo
Let's not forget about medical care for all those child molesters, drunkards and junkies, they are sick and it's the country's duty to help them, right? What about all the murderers and rapists? They consume a large portion of the budget, but we have to keep them well fed and healthy for the next 20 years. The government only looks for new ways to pay for their own mistakes, something to keep them afloat for a few more years.

Meh, 20% of fuck all is fuck all.

How about closing the tax loop holes for corporations and conglomerates?!

Well I'm happy for you, PhydeauxLeChien, that you have such a positive outlook with regard to western economy's.

May I ask where you live? While yes I may be wrong to say fat and lazy so genericly, it also exemplifies the type of people I am referring to. Certainly not pensioners or people that need subsidies to get by even when they are working, and I think you know that. I was talking about a select group, which is undeniable. There are places in this country where 3, 3! generations of the same family have never had a job, and many more that have simply realised that it is more lucrative to have kids and sit at home than to work. And I say this from experience, I grew up on a council estate, I personally know people like this now from where I'm from to where I live now, to where I work now. So these are not pervasive misconceptions, these are observational facts.

Just to add, I do not have a problem with immigration or migrant workers, but it is a proven fact that immigration in the UK is at unsustainable levels and that a large proportion of available jobs are being taken by migrant workers.


I'm sorry, but if I work my ass off to become a millionaire, and then leave it to my child so that he can have a more comfortable life than I have had, not have to go through the shit I did, why on earth would it be their 'duty' to make it easier for someone else? Nobody would have done it for me yet I still made myself a success and passed it to my child, so in practicality I would have done what you asked, but because it's my blood and not a stranger it doesn't count?

What about a one-off tax of 20% on the Royal family? 

A great example of why I'll never understand the lefties.

This guy had it all served on a silver platter, it can't be like that! He has to share! It's our job to force equality! Viva la revolucion!

Well for a start your wrong there. S&P's US ratings are AA+/A-1+ with a stable short to medium outlook and AA+ with a negative long term outlook, citing political risk and rising debt burden. So in reply to your point, the US is actually going to find it harder to acquire credit, and the credit they do get will carry heavier interest rates, therefore increasing debt in the long term and in turn the risk of a default.

Also to add, if the US had to bail out the banks and big industry again, it would bankrupt the country and there wouldn't be much they could do. Bail out to save jobs and some sort of economy, print more money in turn devalue the currency in turn increasing debt, hyperinflation, whole world of trouble. Not bail out, cause mass unemployment as never seen before, loose large chunks of industry, massive deflation, whole world of trouble. See where this is going?

I wonder how many federal workers are as optimistic as you over their governments finances?

Regarding your last point, that's all well and good until you end up with a situation like in Britain where the native population have generations used to living on handouts and so have no incentive to get a job and the jobs that are available are given to immigrants who come here and work for cheaper. While obviously immigrants contribute in taxes they all send a lot of money back to their native country's so more money is leaving the country than going back into the system and meanwhile the lazy benefit takers do less, getting fatter and unhealthier and adding an additional strain on the already stretched health service.

Tell me how either of these scenarios is sustainable?

... and we have a paradox where the more hardworking and efficient you are, the more taxes you have to pay, while drunkards and teen parents get their benefits This also causes migration of the most lazy societies, like Gypsies, to countries with the best social care (currently Germany and UK).

You're right. Higher taxes mean higher unemployment and slower economy growth. There were numerous people in the past, who wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor, it never ended good.

@PhydeauxLeChien basically what you're proposing is to give more money to the government, because they know how to spend it. It's for the greater good right? If they have more money, they can cover pensions and benefits, help all those poor people who don't know what to do with their lives. Thats some real commie bullshit.

I'm sorry but your first point is utter moot. If someone has all their wealth tied up in property, cars, land, whatever, yet their salary is only 50k a year, where exactly is this extra 20% going to come from? Especially considering they will already be paying tax on any property, cars, land, as well as a higher tax rate than the a lot of the UK. Someone's wealth on paper is completely different to how much fiat they hold to be able to pay, for example, another 20% tax. The only way this would be done if buy taxing earnings even more, which is a complete different measure to taxing somebody's, 'wealth'.

While your right on the second point. Saying they haven't defaulted yet isn't exactly a measure of faith or trust. Both UK and more recently, the US have come very close to defaulting. Another crisis on the scale of the most recent one or worse would, without a shadow of a doubt, bust all major western economy's, and you might not have to wait for this as long as you may think. The gravy train has to stop some when!

Wealth taxes are usually done with good intentions but create distortions and moral hazards that take long to fix

Higher taxation to rich doesn't hurt them or stop them from making money.

Still one of wealth tax might be massively problematic to implement. How do you value wealth? Stocks? If people taxed don't have cash on hand they are forced to sell some and if this is wide practise it will affect the markets...

All in all it's structural issue and there is no simple easy solutions in long term...

We have a national debt of over £1 trillion because we have a budget deficit every year. A 20% wealth tax is not going to solve the structural problem, it will only force entrepreneurs and investors out.

Completely agree with all of the above.

One of my family members is a millionaire, he worked the last 50 years to get where he is, grafting to the top from the poor working class docks of Birkenhead and now, because people are envious, he should pay a shit load of his life's work to support them and clear their debt? If so much of the UK wasn't so reliant on state hand outs and living on credit, the debt and deficit wouldn't be what it is today. That and labours reckless borrowing and lack of regulatory enforcement of the banks.

Now, legalising weed and prostitution, regulating and taxing, that's an idea I can get behind. Not because I want to do any of these things, but it will save a hell of a lot of police time so they can tackle crime that is really detrimental to society, and guarantee an almost never ending revenue stream.



Edit: Spelling

I'm not rich either and it irks me I have to say that because I know there are pricks out there particularly here in the UK who do the American thing in politics of either acting like you're either with us or against us or if you believe one thing then you must be a member of 'that' party. As far taxes, it would be great if we could get rid of them entirely but I would settle for a 10% - 15% flat tax rate, this would force governments to spend wisely and a flat tax would mean there aren't any loopholes for people to whine about.

Tell that to the retards who call for wealth redistribution.

They didn't have to gather people who have something against the rich.
Only less then 10% is considered rich so if you pick a bunch of random people for your poll at least 50% of them will always support income tax. Why? Because they envy the rich, hope they will support the country and pay all the expenses, that's how communism was built.
I'm not rich, but I'll never support income tax.

No it doesn't and no it won't.



Who did they gather exactly? Clearly people who had something against people being rich and wanted to take all their wealth from them, these political polls are always bullshit especially if you look at the actual maths behind them, 2000 people is no accurate measure of what a whole country thinks, i expect they added the 'over' part because they didn't want to let on just how few actually voted in such a stupid and selective poll.

Never mind the incredibly flawed political data, while you can argue that the rich could afford such a tax the government spends so much that even if you took away 90% of the wealth it still wouldn't be enough to pay off the debts and cover the inflation that the central bank and the U.K government is creating. Our government, much like most western governments are trying to dodge the main issues instead of dealing with the problem and are only wanting to take populist moves which is why they come up with these shitty ideas.

Now before silly UK politicals come along and try to accuse me of cosying up to the rich, I'm against all stupidly high taxes because the government should be forced to balance their budgets like everybody else, this is also why I support Bitcoin because if we can finally destroy fiat currencies, the only way a government will be able to spend beyond their means is through borrowing and that will force them to default quicker.

Either that or they raise prices to compensate, so people would have to further ask government to take over different aspects of business to prevent this from occurring.  This process repeats until government has total control over the economy and thus, totalitarian state.

I'm not sure how it works over there, but here in 'Murica, the more you raise taxes on the rich, the quicker they start moving to Mexico (where there are no government services and the government still has the common sense not to try to milk every last nickel and dime out of the rich).

Why punish success?

Was recently looking at the Glasgow Media Group (Glasgow University Media research) website (such as it is) and came across this call for a UK wealth tax. The rationale is explained in the link - but basically to pay off public debt.

     It states (in the link above) that "A YouGov poll from June 2010 suggested that 74% of the population would favour a one-off tax on the wealthiest 6 million people in Britain" - and so I wondered what percentage of the population of BitcoinTalk might agree with such a proposal ??

  
edit: another explanatory article here - as the Glasgow site seems slow