Should we tax the rich more?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2018
- Taxation is necessary in order to provide public services like roads, education and health care. But as the world's elderly population grows, and the demand for public services increases, countries will need to reassess how they tax. Where should the money come from?
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on RUclips: econ.st/2tk2YnG
Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.
For more from Economist Films visit: econ.st/2tk2YUI
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: econ.st/2tk2ZrK
Follow The Economist on Twitter: econ.st/2tlqm4f
Follow us on Instagram: econ.st/2tlqmBh
Follow us on Medium: econ.st/2tk31zS
doesnt answer the damn question
the answer is fuck no
@@voluntarism335 the answer is No... And yes...
The answer is yes, "we'll have to bite the bullet..."
out of the three options given the best choice is the sales tax…………….……………………………………………..we should replace the income tax with a 3% sales tax on non essential products and services...…………….…………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….it's better than the other options because it's voluntary
The answer is no.
1. It isn't ethical (if you can give me a reason as to why its fair to tax people more based on their free contractual relationships in a free market economy then I'll change this)
2. It does no good for the poor (the rich, by enlarge, are rich because they provide useful services to consumers and also provide employment, therefore reducing the money they gain only reduces the services and no. Jobs)
OK ENOUGH WITH THE SWIRLY THINGS
Someone agrees
There are like 400 in this video
Better government spending would also greatly increase the available funding for things like healthcare.
Sadly no one looks at the people calling the shots, first, anymore...
1. The US health system is a parasite.
2. Defense contractors are also parasites.
The UK does not have low income tax! 😂
"as healthcare technology improves the cost of healthcare is also going to rise" wtf? technology usually makes things cheaper
True. However, technology has also allowed people to live longer and recuperate worse medical conditions. As increasing portions of the population reach old age, they will have to bear the costs of the associated medical issues.
no the technology itself is expensive though and maintaining or using it requires high skilled professionals which expects higher wages etc
Government efficiency is what we need. These politicians and bureaucracy spends money like it's grows on 🌲 trees
Government and efficiency are not compatible.
Hey it's not their money.
The same as.
Your mom just baked a pie and you offered a pics to your friend.
He will say thanks to you but not your mom because she's not there.
Do you see the picture?
out of the three options given the best choice is the sales tax
…………….……………………………………………..we should replace the income tax with a 3% sales tax on non essential products and services...…………….…………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….it's better than the other options because it's voluntary
No problem! The government could always print more money!
@@KubilayErtuna This isn't the Weimar Republic
The problem I see with a land tax is that it's still kind of a consumption tax as everyone needs somewhere to live. It will drive up rents for non-landowners. Plus most wealthy people only have a small percentage of their overall wealth in land, most of it is in other assets (e.g. stocks, bonds). It seems like this would hurt the middle class the most as they probably have the highest percentage of their wealth tied up in the land they live on.
Now an overall wealth tax that takes into consideration all forms of assets would be a great idea, though it would be extremely difficult to implement. I'd image most wealthy people would simply keep their assets in some tax haven. So again, this might just end up hitting the middle class the hardest. Getting wealthy people to pay their fair share of taxes is hard.
Also when you get laid off or get sick the gov auctions your house when you can't pay the land tax and makes your family homeless after all of your hard work to own your home. That is evil. No land tax should be allowed. Raise the tax on luxury items. No one needs a $100 million boat or steak and lobster every night, charge a 100% tax on those types of items, luxury sneakers and big screen TVs etc... Food staples, low income items like $10 store clothes Payless shoes should low or no taxes.
If you get rid of all other taxes, Rent rising really wont matter because people will have larger income. A wealth tax however is an extremely terrible idea. You are talking about taxing something with speculative value.
Land value tax is based on the value of land, which is the isolated rent of a property, most valuable in urban metros like NYC, cheapest in rural area like farm land. Suburban areas shouldn't see substantial increases in tax. This tax is isolated to rental value, not the building itself. Feel free to develop your house, it won't hurt you. You can also save more profit when you sell it. You don't have to hike up your home price either, you no longer have to account for a property tax.
Th proposed wealth tax under Elizabeth Warren doesn't target the middle class but the upper and rich
Stick a progressive tax on it and landlords won't be incentivized to profiteer.
we should replace the income tax with a 3% sales tax on non essential products and services
Fixed supply, moderately elastic demand means that a rise in tax is shouldered by the supplier ie the land lord.
Rents won't go up unless land lords sell their properties, which means cheaper houses to buy.
If the tax is too high, the rich will just leave the Uk and go somewhere cheaper. If tax is too low, then the government won’t have enough money. You have to get it somewhere in the middle.
Aerial J Laffer curve pretty much
Although I believe that even though it is currently not possible in the far future an harmonisation of tax and benefits systems across countries could help prevent the rich from the moving away
Amélie Not going to happen. Tax competition between countries is a healthy antidote to tyranny. No sensible person would vote to take their rights and freedom away.
902d I know, especially as the new trend is moving out from the eu, free trade areas and integration. It is a shame and I don't really know what we should do in the short term
if taxes are low, billionaires come to your country to pay the lower rate.
LOW INCOME TAXES IN THE UK?!
Your whole basis for this argument is that we need more tax revenue because of an aging population. You dont if the aging population planed for the future and saved.
Regardless taxes shouldn't even exist, they are theft.
@@Cacowninja I agree to a certain extent. Such as Bastiat's argument that taking from one to give to the other is legalized plunder or theft. However we come together as free people and form a government for the protection of our inalienable rights, in order to protect those rights some form of taxation is required to pay for that protection. Of course we are so far beyond that simple idea of limited government.
@@chrismason9528 And why do we need a government to protect our rights? I never asked for such a thing plus government can only take rights instead.
I mean governments are funded by force and rule by force. You want true protection? Then look towards the free market with guns and privatized protection.
Limited government just gets big anyway every time so what's the point?
@@Cacowninja it would help me considerably, if you would explain in some detail how all of this works, without a government.
@Fell Man I really am waiting to hear your reply , how we do this without government. I am the eternal inquisitor and would like to consider your answer.
Amazing that this has no comment on tax havens and their growing effect on this issue.
As Milei once said, tax havens are only possible when tax hells exist. Viva la libertad carajo!!!!
There are a lot of other tax solutions that are not mentioned.
One underrated aspect of the land value tax is decreased cost of enforcement. No more reams of receipts and ledgers to keep track of. You could end the IRS.
Don't forget about raising sales tax and lowering the income tax can accomplish the same thing. Income tax is hard and expensive to collect, where as sales tax isn't, and everyone pays, even people who make money under the table. It's a far easier and cheaper way to collect the same money. Abolish the IRS!
Taxing the rich means you will never get to become rich... The rich ARE RICH they don't pay tax on the money they already got.
Fun fact... US had ZERO income tax in 1880... They put in a 3% income tax in 1910 ONLY for the ultra rich... Now the average man pays 28% taxes on average in the US and UK plus fees for all government issued paperwork like approvals and legal documents.
Except you couldn’t generate anywhere near enough money with that.
@@cadenbigler Raise it to what? A sales tax over 10% starts to have tapering efficacy due to evasion.
@@programking655 this was 4 years ago man....
low income tax rates in the UK? come now. what an over simplified and inaccurate statement!
40%
@@tictoc5443 thats not low 10 or 15% is but not 40%
Wealth tax is bad. We have it Norway. The result: Rich people are leaving the country in droves and moving to Switzerland. Consumption tax is also bad. It makes everything we buy more expensive, and they are regressive, which means that they hit poor people the hardest. Taxing income is the best and fairest way to tax.
Problem is that the money that was supposed to go to services it's often used to personal enrichment or for projects that don't go anywhere or for luxuries for the president and governors such as unnecessary luxury cars and furniture and experiences that are being paid by the citizens which is totally offer the cost of basic services is often exaggerated so that the bureaucrats can have careers and live off people's work.. I don't think we should have anarchy but lower taxes are very in my opinion
If the government wants to charge more taxes, they need to prove first that they're going to use it clean and wisely.
Can they?
And about the VAT, I think it's one of a good options because the government can control it like exempting tax on necessaries and charge more in fancy-products.
Goodluck with that.
out of the three options given the best choice is the sales tax
…………….……………………………………………..we should replace the income tax with a 3% sales tax on non essential products and services...…………….…………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….it's better than the other options because it's voluntary
@@robinsss lol buddy, how is a 3% sales tax going to fund the government when an average income tax of 30% in the U.S can't even fully fund the government due to ever increasing deficits... Probably more like an 100% tax on non essential products and services will do the trick.
@@seanl764 why don't you reduce the budget?
starting with the bloated military that should have been cut 25 years ago?
@@robinsss What you don't realize is that once you cut the military, the U.S currency won't be the World's reserve Currency anymore, and the economy will loose its stability due to an inability to threaten China. One of the Major reasons the trade war started is because China wanted to become the 2nd reserve currency in the world with their belt and road initiative with partner countries under that initiative. In case you didn't know, the U.S dollar is the most stable currency in the world because of that status. In order to do business across borders and exchange currencies you have to exchange a currency into the U.S Dollar first. Let's say you are located in Russia, and want to purchase goods directly from China. You would have to convert your Russian Rouble to USD, and then from USD to Chinese Yuan according to the Laws of the World Trade Organization.
You can't just exchange your money directly. Every Single Global Trade made with currency has to grease the palms of the U.S financial sector with fees. Unless you are buying or selling with bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, you can't escape paying a fee to the U.S financial sector. On the other hand, Wall Street has data on every major commercial transaction in the world due to the USD status as a reserve currency, they literally control global commerce with data and insight on every current market trend. If another reserve currency is widely accepted if some countries don't think that the U.S military reigns supreme, then the U.S financial sector would literally loose their monopoly on the control of global trade, and loose out on their ability to gain insight on current commerce trends.
The Government doesn't need to bite the bullet. They bite no bullet. It's the citizens that have to bite the bullet.
Michael exactly Mike
out of the three options given the best choice is the sales tax
…………….……………………………………………..we should replace the income tax with a 3% sales tax on non essential products and services...…………….…………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….it's better than the other options because it's voluntary
When regular people hear, more tax on rich, they should get ready for higher taxes .
By rich I hope you also mean politicians who live in million dollar mansions
They wont tax politicians but everyone else that is wealthy
As a politicians they lobby rich peoples interests. Once they done with politics, they all so lucky to find general directors jobs. Magic.
I thought we have relatively high income tax? The other videos I've watched whilst trying to understand tax, say we have a very high income tax as our brackets go up to 45% (whereas in examples I've seen, they compare it with America, who never see 40% tax rates)
The US has a top tax rate of about 50% - 60% tax rates for federal, state, and local taxes.
1:00 "Countries with low income taxes, such as the UK, tend to have stronger economic growth."
Me: *Laughs in American*
He said that because it stimulates demand in the overall economy.
But there is other macroeconomic factors that will disturb those growth tendencies, like inflation for example.
Which will keep happening if you support leftist fiscal and monetary policies like a lot of ppl are sadly doing in the USA….
@@philippe6787 Are you taking into account the elaborate loopholes of our tax codes? The rich are not paying those tax rates lol.
@@alexfernandez6621 The ProPublica leak has showed that they generally are paying those tax rates. Bloomberg was the exception with a 2.9% tax rate, and, while that's suspicious on the surface, I would suspect that it's because he sold a lot of stock at a loss to fund his campaign. Everyone else was paying about 25-30% in federal taxes. It's also worth noting that in the US, the richer you are, the more of a share of your tax burden you pay as opposed to the share of income received. This remains true even when including state and local taxes.
@@alexfernandez6621 how much percentage a very miniscule percentage majority is paying this is also a leftists propaganda.
They just won't buy houses and will send their money out of the country.
I think we should introduce a tree tax where if you don’t have this many trees over this much land, you get taxed based ont he amount you don’t have so it not only encourages people to plant more trees on their land, but also adds more money for economy. We could slowly rise the amount of trees and the amount of tax over the course of several years.
4 years late but what a terrible idea especially for the poor.
me wondering how the freak they can call themselves the economist
How does an improvement of healthcare technology indicate an increase in cost? Wouldn’t it be going down? And how would this represent a percentage increase? Wouldn’t the other aspects of tax increase as well?
Dear The Economist, could you provide a reference list for the literature reviewed to inform this video (or share your analysis if you conducted original work), particularly behind the claim that higher income taxes reduce growth and discourage working? Thank you.
They won’t, because they haven’t. And it shows in their claims.
People do work less if there is higher income tax.
@@Nelcomarproductions no people would be forced to become more productive so they can sustain their current lifestyle, like stay at home mums looking for jobs to boost their husbands.
A land value tax would cripple UK agriculture.
No it wouldn’t because rural land is lower value than land in the city. Saying it would be “crippled” is an over exaggeration as businesses are not crippled by business rates.
This animator really loves smoke.
Taxation is already excessive other than for those that pay $0 in Federal income taxes.
There are just two options: 1st you give your money VOLUNTARILY for receiving a product or service YOU ASKED. 2nd YOU'RE FORCED to give your money to someone wich is theft. Btw, the state is sending that money to abortion clinics.
Tax is theft, fuck this stupid video, i hate the government and everything about it
Land Value Tax is not technically a "tax" nor a tax on wealth. It is a user fee that landowners pay to compensate those they exclude for their loss of opportunity. That the state collects, spends/re-distributes that compensation is a separate issue.
Also as land is defined as everything not supplied by human effort, then any tax that negatively distorts economic decisions cannot by definition be a land tax.
1:42 Honestly, proponents of wealth taxes are generally not proposing taxing everyday homeowners' houses. They're not talking about taxing people with like £10m+.
Infinity Gauntlet...*snap finger*
Lol!!!!
The simple answer is no. When people start taking things for granted then you start a process which goes slightly in the opposite direction, what you need is incentive and there is no incentive if there is no carrot, there is no carrot if you got the next best thing in your lap already. Economics is extremely complex and just throwing around statements like these is an oversimplification which can do damage.
Simple Solution
Eliminate taxes such as
-State Taxes
-Eliminate the IRS
-Don't tax people that make less than $45,000
-Have a Flat Tax
-Eliminate Corporate Tax
How about eliminating offshore tax havens for individuals and corporations!!!
The question asked here is should should the rich pay more tax? ... So governments can raise more money to pay for health care, infrastructure and their deficits. Your answer is no because tax havens generate a bit more business activity nearby which doesn't solve anything except help the rich. Even with the current corporate tax cut to ~20% all major corporations pay around 9% using tax havens. They keep their foreign profits offshore and repatriate only whats needed to cover their operating costs. See report by NYT www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/business/corporate-tax-cut.html
@@christophertarry4865 Are you really saying tax havens stimulates the economy? This is the very opposite of what any basic economic book will say.
No comment on what is an essential service that only a Government entity can provide vs the numerous, expensive “services” that are not essential?
bad idea, people will pack up and put their money somewhere else where it cant be taxed
@karrie36 um no. It’s really not like saying that
No one should pay more than their fair share but all deductions and tax breaks should go away including unreinvested capital gains. It irks me that so many who pay so little grouse about those that pay more than the rest of the country combined.
And what about Wealth Erosion due to such taxes and its subsequent investment impact which could led to impacting the nations economy..?
Instead Public Services should be made self sustainable for a Long Term..
Help to buy Scheme is an example of a morally wrong scheme.
If I put £4000 in a help to buy ISA
The government "Gives" me £1000 towards buying a home!
Now I already paid income tax on my salary so why does the government give it back to me with these controlling rules
In the US & other countries most taxes go towards national defense. I got not problem paying more taxes if that means I'm getting better roads and better services, but most of the time, the money "disappears" and the situation generally stays the same. Except now I have less money.
I believe 60 cent of u.s dollars go to defense system and etc is spread out
Riddle me this then... where would we draw the line? And what would be stopping people from lowering their wealth, income, consumption to just below that line, thus avoiding the higher taxes and ultimately making more.
Doesn't a tax on the wealthy just deter people from pursuing more wealth, leading to less consumption, lower corporate incomes, and thus less money going back into the people?
No, you can't stop wealth from accumulating. The game monopoly teaches you this.
Fuck taxing wealth. That's absurd. It will just encourage hiding wealth in things like gold bars, crypto and cash that are outside the traditional banking system. Basically it discourages productive investment and lending.
Low taxes + More Government Revenue is what many people is dreaming about but it will only works when there are plenty of Government-owned businesses and the Goverment invested on stocks.
@0:48 did he just say income tax has been rising while showing a graph of income tax as a percent of total taxation raising over time? I expect better from the economist
Don't be stupid. Just spend the taxes better
This presupposes that the government has to pay for all healthcare costs, which seems a little inaccurate.
So what is the answer?
Government could just not provide services and everyone would survive on their own means. Then less taxes and everyone is happy except those who made bad choices or are unlucky.
So crony capitalism? That will lead to communism as society would revolt
Flat tax for all.
Only ethical way to deal with income tax.
Disagree? Please tell me why its fair to tax someone more (by percentage), on the principle that they earned more money in the exact same free market economy you have the right to contend with
I absolutely agree. Why should the rich pay a higher percentage? The answer is, they shouldn’t.
One things for sure, they can never tax us enough haha
Taxing the rich is not a good idea because:
Taxing will push them out of the United States (or any nation) so no revenue from them and,
Will cause them not to create businesses to create jobs.
Exactly! Well said.
All the Scandinavian countries have progressive tax systems and jobs aren't sent offshore. If a person is going to put their money in foreign banks to avoid paying higher taxes then they should be arrested for tax evasion because it is a crime.
Totally agree. Billionaires will have to liquidize their assets, dropping the value of the stock market. Anyone who has a 401K will lose wealth. Taxing the billionaires means the middle class will take a big hit.
@@maddie_1122 all Scandinavian countries have low corporate taxation
Wealth taxes would encourage people with lots of money to even more strongly influence Governments, and Governments will feel obliged to act in the interests of their paymasters... However, wealth taxes ought to mean that the beneficiaries of media trusts might pay more tax.
Land taxes have the advantage that land cannot move to a tax haven, unlike consumption, wealth, or income taxes.
Id like to add that this corruption won't be a problem because the only way any of this is getting passed is if monetary lobbying (fundraising) and campaign finance is abolished
The easiest way is to just have a set income tax for every one, but as the further down the latter our income is the less taxes fully have to pay.
tax the top 20% only
@1:30 Henry George suggested tax _unimproved_ land. This would hopefully incentivize land owners either to build (improve) on it or sell it instead of waiting decades for the value to increase gradually.
My opinion on this is that no, why should we tax people who have more money because they are successful. I'm not saying they shouldn't be taxed more. Maybe just a little bit more.
key word here is opinion. yea i know people on the internet are not allowed to have opinions.
How about we tax the poor. Countless millions of "poor" pay no taxes whatsoever, yet they take the biggest chunk of public services. Everyone should pay something.
Leaves out payroll taxes, which should be the first to go, and taxes on financial assets, too many of which serve only speculative purposes.
Would be better if we didn’t have to rely on the state...
@karrie36 at least that way it's individual responsibility thus it's fair.
@karrie36 don't tell me what I don't know, in fact I do know that. No, the responsibility was taken by parliament because it was their choice. aka the state.
@karrie36 yes, now you figured out the problem with the state..
Taxing wealth, and taxing investments, when brexit is going on... whos bright idea was it to deter investment into the country when it will need as much foreign investment it can get
they mean taxing local investments, like say you open up a stock account and invest 50k into it. Once you pull out the money and once you invest new money both times you get taxed. Since only mostly upper middle to rich people can afford to spend loads of cash on stocks it won't affect the poor like sales taxes.
the problem with taxing wealth like real-state is that the house is not generating any money while ur living there... So it might be not so fair
i'm okay with land tax as long as it it affecting the people with enormous pieces of land but still takes income in account too.
you can tax a farmer that much even if his land stretches pretty far.
well i guess you can.. if you want to destroy your farming industry.
And then how does the affect real estate investment? You do realize LVT would push rents WAAAAAAY up? Landlords arent going to sit down, take it up the ass, and make less money. They'll just charge more. Who gets fucked in the end? The average rent payer.
Jesus you guys are so out there to "fuck over the rich people" that you'll shoot yourself in the foot to do it.
The vast majority of "land", in terms of value, is real estate with buildings on it, i.e in cities. People who own real estate already see themselves as doing something - owning property and making a return on it. If you tax all the land, all it would translate into would be higher land values, and higher rent values. What happened when Berlin recently tried imposing a rent cap in central Berlin? It raised the rent values of all the surrounding areas.
cannabased artificial government controls on prices and redistributive taxes tend to have unintended consequences. In Argentina we have a 2% land value tax on agricultural land which is supposedly meant to be for agricultural road maintenance. It just disappears into a cesspit of corruption and increases the costs of agricultural production.
yeah good point.
i still think it's tricky though, i would rather see taxes increase with how much income you have so the millionaires get hit hard but average joe doesn't.
or tax on luxury items like vila's and expensive cars.
sugar tax wouldn't hurt either. especially if the tax on healthy products gets lowered.
You've got a few things wrong. Firstly LVT and rent(along with it's capitalisation into selling prices) are economically the same. So new land users in the future after the LVT pay exactly the same for their land use. Only they have much reduced taxes on what they produce.
Secondly, its a land value, not land area tax. The rental value of farm land, minus it's improvements, is so low isn't hardly worth bothering with from a tax POV.
It's only taxes on things humans produce that distort incentives to produce them. Thus the LVT doesn't destroy anything other than landlord/bankers incomes.
Why not first reduce govt expenditure by 50% at least?
The government doesnt do shit for anyone except themselves
Create a homeless tax for the ultra rich to fund low cost housing. Would stimulate the economy and help the homeless crisis.
before taxing wealth they should establish transparent system which ensure no corruption.. imagine ur life savings getting taxed to full pockets of corrupt politicians
Yes. Next question...
Never understood why corporations and the individuals who own the corporations are getting both tax cuts.
I personally have no issue with corporations receiving a tax cut. But those corporations who receive a corporate tax break, should not receive an individual tax cut
What about taxes on demerit goods - increasing tax on cigarettes, alcohol, sugar tax and tax on unhealthy foods, pollution and even legalising cannabis and taxing that would raise money while having positive rather than negative effects on society.
Ban government. No need for taxes. He assumes I want more government services, then blames me for not wanting to pay higher taxes. I don't want more government services, or more government of any kind. Lower taxes, then get rid of any and all government that doesn't fit in the tighter budget. Politicians don't like it? Well, let's sit down for a little tea party and discuss it.
1930 to 1980 , the highest bracket averaged 80% , and had the best gdp growth during this time.
@Myballsitchsomethingfierce key word " effective " . Current " effective " rate will be lower. Cant calculate the current effective rate until after this tax season
The first point is completely wrong. Governments can't raise taxes on income not because people would feel discouraged but because of international competition, if the workforce is costing to mich to the company, it will relocalise elsewhere
I do not understand one think if health care technologies improve, how come cost will rise?
YES
Time for a Wealth Tax?
A new wealth tax on high earners would just about put the tin lid on the future of the UK. Huge numbers of skilled people would emigrate to countries which reward effort and enterprise. this would destroy the UK if any madcap tried to introduce it.
Or what if we just had a small flat income tax while your alive and a 100% dealth tax for anything over one million dollars? That would only hurt aristocratcy and not entrepreneurs.
YES! But the tax should be biased towards their consumption and not production.
Corporation tax discourages people from working!?!?!? (0:53)
Of course. Why have government if not for the common good. It isn't whether the rich should pay more. It is a question of what we collectively feel are important services to provide--you then pay for it off the top.
the most uninformative informative video ever.
That day isn't too far when gov will stop being a tax collector and start being an investor
now that cash is a thing of the past, everyone is paying via card... there is no reason why the vendor has to charge VAT. one could quite easily switch things around and have the card issuer add the tax and remit it, without the vendor knowing. Card issuers are fewer, and necessarily linked to bank accounts, and thus necessarily have government id linked to them. So then VAT could become a progressive tax, based on an individual's net worth, or income or whatever. The VAT rate would be individually customizable.
If there is a tax on wealth. Doesn't it mean wealth is no longer secure or safety net? Meaning no one can really own wealth again as they can be punished for not paying wealth tax. Income Tax and Capital Increase Tax remains best
The concept of tax is totally correct, but if the govt doesn't expediate it properly then it is prove to be wrong. For ex if a big builder construct a big complex in front of my house from the last three years and earns a lot of money, the govt is obligue to collect tax from the builder and compensate me in the form of all fundamental facilities in return of disturbance I have faced during the last 3 years. Also the resources which was used by the businessman for earning money belongs to te public first.
The UK does not have a low income tax rate
Get rid of the waste - why is the civil service overrun with middle management clowns on £150K+ per year who do nothing at all? It's time the UK introduced a national salary scale meaning the top civil servant i.e. the Prime Minister receives the largest salary.
A tax on wealth is a punishment on right behavior. It encourages people to spend and consume and to be more dependent on the governmenr rather than saving, investing, and being self sufficient.
many of the commenters here are completely uneducated about economic matters. I recommend your read this article in the Atlantic: “The Birth of a New American Aristocracy.” Great stuff. I learnt a lot. Yes we need more regulation and higher levels of taxation if we want to avoid unrest and a revolution. Just study History and see for yourself what happens when the wealth gap keeps increasing.
The problem is the mega rich use loopholes such as safe havens.
cannabased it will push all land cost up for everyone. As market value will increase, for Middle income groups as well.
cannabased well basically seller charge more when selling to get what they want net of tax. And yes increasing the tax levied would decrease sales as owners will hold onto it when experiencing cash flow problems in order to realise their investment after the market value has appreciated more.
cannabased I'm not familiar with Pigovian taxes. With regards to the ground rent, I believe lessors will pass that burden on by increasing the rent payable by Lessees.
cannabased i was actually enjoying reading your response until I realised you were being condescending. I'm not from your country, but your principles sound backwards as you mention people capitalizing rental even though it is not of a capital nature. And here's 2 seconds of econ for you, You can pass on the burden as long as your marginal income will exceed your marginal cost. But anyways, so unnecessary to be rude.
cannabased thank you for that first year economics crash course and you just proved my point becuase demand is not elastic for housing.
I don't like property tax, why should I pay to keep what is already mine? I like income tax the most it's the most proportional.
I think everyone should get taxed equally, you can't claim to be an equal country and jet tax one portion of the population more than double the population of the other
It’s actually not a good idea to tax wealth or estate. Those are things you’ve already been taxed for when you acquired those goods. Therefore, you would be paying tax twice if you tax those items.
You need to redo this video: 1) Hospitals DO NOT equal health care. That needs to be made clear, or you need to just say 'health care costs'. 2) Why would the cost of health care increase with technology? Doesn't the trend of better tech drive costs down? 3) Taxes on wealth make people angry AND the people who are already paying the most in taxes may leave altogether, costing people their jobs as well the the income tax revenue the govt. increasingly depends on.
Yes
Not only increasing taxes for the rich leads to bad economical productivity, it’s also morally unacceptable.
How?
@Ann Linley the incentive to work is that you still get more money than everybody else. Its such a flawed isea to think income tax hurts incentive. If i take home 300k that is 300k more than people below me. Also the reason you tax the rich a lot is because they dobt like to spend money, this handicaps the economy. Theres a reason the middlrclass is called tge backbone of the economy, they spend. Also higher taxes means the govt can spend on stuff tgat people need like universal hc, free public college, new infra, etc...while reducing burdens on the middle class.
@Ann Linley higher taxes leads to larger investments and increases the midlle classes power since their taxes lower, thus growing the economy. The rich get taxed higher because they dont need 1 mik to survive. If your a smart rich guy you will just save the money and live a middle class life style, this keeps money away from investments, slowing economic potential. So as per you bc you hv to pay higher taxes youll just stop working? So youll go from 300k to 0, bc you disagree with the rates?
@Ann Linley speaking on evidence, only on personal level not corporate, when the rich pay less it hurts the economy thus hurting them, when they pay high taxes the economy grows, thus helping them.
@Ann Linley me personally i would say top tax rate at 50% not 70 or whatever, when the middle class are prosperous the economy. Not when the rich are prosperous.
Governments should do less, not tax more.
a quick way to get massive & systematic socioeconomic disparities^
And that's a good thing. Whenever the people are equal, they are equally miserable. When the rich get richer, the poor usually rise faster by percentage. It's not trickle down mythology, it's a fact backed up by numbers. Stop living in the 17th century.
Or gov could privatize most services so they can be ran efficiently. We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
no
The Marginal Tax Rate during the Eisenhower Administration was 91%. Go and look at all the things we achieved in those years. "the best education system, with mostly free in-state tuition for college; we had an increasing minimum wage, strong unions and, higher productivity---we were at the height of American supremacy. ... Medicare, and Civil Rights advances"