People earning a 100k salary are not the problem - they're already paying plenty of income tax, and contributing to the economy through their spending. Nor are people retiring with 1m in assets (home+pension+ISAs) - that's just what is required for a comfortable retirement these days (house, travelling, eating out, supporting their grandkids etc), and we should be aiming for this to be the norm for a typical working person - not putting more barriers in the way. The issue is people with tens of millions or more in assets, raking in interest and rent from the lower economic classes, and then just sitting on their pile of money rather than feeding the economy by spending it.
@DewiSant-o3y When I retire I'm planning on paying as little in tax as possible. I don't mind paying tax, I just don't like governments, especially Labour governments, squandering my money.
@@kw8757Am already retired and that’s exactly how I feel. If the tax I pay was put to good use I’d have no issue paying but when you look at the nonsensical ideas politicians have it’s clear the majority of our money gets wasted.
You're banging on like a true academic. Equity doesn't work in a society where some aspire and others don't. Why should I work hard if my earnings are mostly taken away from me so that i get the same as someone who hasn't put in the effort? Why should I save to be self sufficient in old age if those savings are then creamed off? All the most useful contributors will retire early or move elsewhere.
You're missing the point entirely. We should focus on taxing priviliged forms of wealth through inheritance, investment to shift the tax burden away from working people. Equity means equal opportunity, which promotes a hard working and aspirational society. Why should any non priveliged people work hard when they will be burdoned with raising all the tax and those that already have land and capital gains are coddled?
That's why taxing the mega rich is the way to go.the wealth of the uk billionaires has increased by 300% during the period of tory misrule rule.they are the people most able to shoulder the extra tax and that Loss of wealth will have zero effect on their life style and will allow the country to make the investments so badly needed for rebuilding our frastucture which will benifit everyone in our country.
Airlines are currently exempt from fuel duty, yet trains, cars, lorries, etc are not. It's true that nobody wants their imported food to suddenly become more expensive, but it would increase attempts to import from near neighbours when possible if there was a level playing field - in our case, Europe rather than the other side of the world.
This is a global issue - there doesn't seem to be any viable route for UK (for example) to apply a fuel duty tax on its own. Short of a full global agreement, maybe it is not inconceivable for a pan-EU air fuel duty tax - allowing UK to come to some agreement on that single issue. But how that would work for flights not within the EU+UK, I really have no idea.
@curtisnixon no it doesn't, your council tax pays for the roads. Fuel duty has nothing to do with it. That's the same old tired argument that grumpy old men use against cyclists, thinking that somehow they get to "hog" and use our roads "without paying for them!" Fuel duty goes into a general taxation bucket. Your council will pay for repairs to the roads. But big trucks and heavy vehicles cause the most deterioration to these roads... So Amazon trucks, the trucks that deliver our food... These are all the main culprits here.
Rachel Reeves is not, and never has been, a Labour politician. Neither indeed, is Keir Starmer. They are nothing other than closet Tories, and the current version of Labour is pure blue Tory as we are now discovering.
You are entirely wrong on taxing pension contributions. It is not relief, it is delaying when you pay tax until the time you draw the funds. Otherwise you create double tax and strong disincentives to put money into a pension.
That’s not really true. I get 40% relief on my income but when I draw it out, I will be either using my 25% tax free allowance (so there’s a quarter gone straight away) and drawing the rest at either zero (up to my allowance) or at 20%. Further more, there are plenty of ways to avoid double income taxation, so changing the point at which it’s taxed need not mean double taxation.
@@jamesreynolds4811if you’re getting 40% tax relief, you’re likely to end up paying 40% on your pension withdrawals as you’ll most likely have saved enough to move you into that income band when you take the income.
@@bjorn2625 no we won’t because we won’t be taking our income at a high rate. We will be paying 20% base tax. And that’s in a single income household for a couple (my wife earns, I raised the kids and support her) which increases our tax exposure compared to dual income households. No matter how you look at it, pension tax relief benefits the already well off the most. And that’s before you think about the 25% tax free allowance (possibly under review) which if managed properly will mean my wife (we) will probably pay under 5 or 10% on total retired income. Even if we were to reach the higher rate threshold, the worst that would happen is that our gains would be clipped. We’d still only be paying zero or 20% tax on most of our income and not the 40% plus we’d be paying without pension tax relief. All we have to do is keep my wife’s annual pension income below £50k to avoid 40% tax on it. Not including her 25% tax allowance. Even if she does go over £50k income, she’d only be paying 40% on the amount over £50k. And then there’s the employer contribution, reduce NI contributions etc. The system heavily stacked towards the relatively already well off.
@@jchanning72 read my previous comment again. If I avoid paying 40% in my income by putting it in my pension (ignoring other employer contribution NI benefits) and then I my pension income is taken below the 40% threshold, I will pay less tax in my pension income. I will not pay tax at all on the first £12k, then I will only pay 20% on the income between £12k and £50k. If I took that as income (ignoring NI for simplicity, to demonstrate the hypothesis) now, I’d pay £20k of it as tax. If I take it as my pension, I’d pay about £7k. That’s a whopping third of the tax liability. It is not deferment, it is avoidance.
Richard is not suggesting taxing YOU> he suggests taxing OTT things like flash yachts, smoking, big estates. He wants to lift people out of poverty, not allow the rich to continue to wallow in ludicrous revenues!!!
Isn't it depressing that such reasonable, rational and moderate ideas seem like radical revolution compared to what is actually on offer from this Labour government?
@SocietalDefibrilation You need to understand the difference between tax rates and taxes. Taxes as a percentage of the economy are at the highest in over 70 years AND we are running a massive deficit. We are getting massive amounts of tax, what we have is a spending problem not a tax problem. Taxes are too high, higher than when the Beatles were complaining in song.
@@mikefish8226 Yes, but taxes are unfairly leveraged. That's the whole point, the tax burden as an overall percantage of the economy is high but it's not fairly distributed and directed in the right way. The government's plan makes no sense - expecting the private sector, which only interest is to maximise their own profits, to invest in public utilities (including labour) and infrastructure and then somehow this magical growth will result in higher tax revenues for the state which they will then use to finally invest in the public. It's all backwards. If we tax these corporations less, they won't just invest more, they'll pay more dividends to their shareholders. This has been clear for so long, it's absolute madness that a so-called Labour government believes in this ludicrous and demonstrably failed ideology. There's zero difference between this and the last government. The same neoliberal shite. Corporations and wealthy twats are running (ruining) this country.
The issue I see with raising all of the aforementioned tax rates is that you don’t end up actually taxing the real rich, the ones with trust funds and shell companies and ownership structures because these are the same people that fund the political parties’ election campaigns and so they will never actually redistribute wealth. All your tax measures above will be paid by the same people that always brunt the majority of the tax reforms and that is the middle class, and whilst in the short term you may raise taxes, it will hinder growth and lead to an exodus of these high salarial earners to other countries with lower tax burdens. That’s because the people who pay the most tax aren’t employers and estate/business owners rather those who are employed and have a salary, and the companies who pay well are MNCs and so these people would have alternatives and be wanted elsewhere where they aren’t crucified for working hard and reaching the top. Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?
Typical left-wing thinking. 1st step is to identify & cut the wasted money. The options presented simply encourage tax to go up & up & up. That's the logical conclusion
"Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?" That's a strange analogy. You're either impyling that those people who got higher GCSE grades don't deserve them, or if they do, that billionaires deserve the billions that they have accumulated (stolen) through the work of other people. So, maybe you think that a billionaire has earnt that money all by themselves? Perhaps Elon Musk genuinely has worked hundreds of billions of times harder than his employees and has not benefitted from a lenient tax system and undemocratic corporate structures which favours, obviously, those in charge of decision making 🤣
@@mxj-x2r I had assumed that people would have interpreted this analogy in the context of my message as it would have made sense then, but I will expand on it so that you may understand. First of all I am not implying that those who work hard for their grades don't deserve it, in fact it is the opposite I think they do. The same way the people earn good money (on salaries), have also had to have worked hard for them whether you like it or not. Secondly, it is a quite black/white view by saying billionaires either all deserved or didn't deserve any of it. Also, Net worth is not actualised so it isn't liquid money, and often quite difficult to accurately calculate. Today Musk may be worth $200bn, but tomorrow after a market crash he could be worth $50bn. And success is decided on what you bring to the market, and if you can add value to people's lives. Supply and demand. My point is that those billionaires wouldn't be in the conversation of having their GCSE results shared and redistributed because they would be the ones who would be absolved from it, as they would have helped those who would want that policy implemented, to get into power as they would have paid for their campaigns, and in return those ultra-wealthy would be protected. All the other common folk like your middle and working class who would have had to have worked hard for their grades would be the ones punished once again. That being said, no one earns billions by sitting on their arse, and I sense a bit of frustration (envy) at your describing of how they accumulated their wealth. Yes some may have accumulated their wealth in certain unfavourable ways, but don't let these hypocrites of labour socialists fool you into thinking they'll do something about it (Free-gear Keir is worth north of £7m, Corbyn the communist is worth north of £3m). They'll never be taxed or reprimanded for it because they pull the strings in the first place, funding their politicians to get into power. So don't expect their lenient tax-system to change in any way whatsoever. (Corporate structures is a whole 'nother topic where i agree that the marketplace is being monopolised by big funds - BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street - and give you the illusion of choice whilst squeezing every penny out of your pockets.)
It's early days yet but labour have truly lost their way forward . Their rhetoric and their actions are two different things which is the worst case scenario because it's like being in the dark .
I work for the NHS and Labour have given a 5% pay rise. At my grade that equates to about £44 per month. I am also a single occupier who gets 25% discount on council tax. If that 25% discount is removed I will have to pay an additional £58 per month so that will wipe out my pay increase. With energy, water and insurances all going up I will be about £85 per month worse off. Whatever your income or budget, we will all be worse off in the long run and for me personally, probably the rest of my life.
@@debbiegilmour6171 ; Yes Debbie … You can get agricultural relief now - but in this video the mad professor is saying Labour should rid of it ! … (Which would cause a significant transfer of land from small holdings to giant corporations re-enforcing the belief that Labour, especially Starmer, hate the native English).
@@Hickalum It's not that they hate the native English (though that is a ridiculous notion for a party that is meant to be "British"), it's that they love mega corporations far too much. But I'm sure nobody is suggesting that generational farmers be afflicted by a removal of agricultural relief.
Why not cut costs first, rather than the knee jerk 'tax more'? Areas like overseas aid, pointless non medical staff in the NHS, excess staffing in the Civil Service and more...
Many non-medical roles in the NHS are necessary, not pointless. Think about all the admin work that has to be done in a country-wide health system. Also, if you then cut a load of jobs, you lose out on the tax that you would have gained if they were still in work. If you were to, say, cut 100,000 public sector jobs, then those people will be unemployed, and there may well be 100,000 more people claiming universal credit. And that then means the fiscal deficit rises!! I'm not saying that every job in the public sector is vital, but we shouldn't try and implement deflationary policies to combat the economic mess that the UK is in right now. Especially because there is a much more reasonable response, one which Richard Murphy has talked about in many of his other videos - Modern Monetary Theory.
Overseas aid already was cut by a huge amount. Besides, that's not a lot compared to the revenue amounts that Richard has talked about. Why are you focusing on overseas aid and civil service staff? What do you think about capital gains tax? Corporation tax? Tax on wealth and assets and high polluters? What are your thoughts on those which we do not tax nowhere near enough
Because he’s a typical jealous bitter idiot who thinks it ok for people who’ve worked their arses off and subsequently get wealthy only to be forced to give it to strangers rather than their own families!
We have been had for centuries. The amount of educated people who genuinely think national economies are run like the household is staggering. When I tell them the messages from these very informative videos, they often look at me like I'm a moron. The general 'tax DOESN'T fund expenditure' message should be RAMMED home every single day. I recommend these videos to everyone I speak to and also "The secrets of Oz' video which tells the story of the Central Bank and usury scams absolutely brilliantly!
Before they follow your suggestion of redistributing wealth by further taxing those of us who have been prudent, worked hard, and made the choice to sacrifice our free time and other pleasures to make a good living for us and our families, perhaps the government should address mass immigration? Why should any of us work hard to help support the lifestyles of the ten million people in this country who were not born here or the millions more coming each year, most poor and poorly educated? Society cannot function like that. If you want to raise taxes, start by simplifying the tax laws and close the numerous loopholes which allows multi national corporations and UHNW individuals legally avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
That! Worked 75+ hours on average every week over my entire working life. Didn't pay myself dividends because it was wrong IMO, so paid myself PAYE. I'm not very wealthy, just about scrape into the millionaire bracket, but I worked hard for every penny. There should be some recognition of that.
Why not rather then taxing income. Tax ownership if assets directly such as if you operate a business in the UK instead of taxing a proportion of the profits the government owns a % of the business this could be sold if revenue needed to be raised or more investment could be provided to sectors which need support. The same principal could be applied to property.
Illegal immigrants …..no money can’t come in . Try registering in Spain as a resident to retire if you haven’t got money . One rule for them one rule for us . Cut MPS fuel allowance to Zero . That’ll also help their net zero con job . Labour utter disgrace ……resign .
@@RobinHarding-ep1ud weird misunderstanding of the world. Illegal immigrants (sic) are by definition outside the normal requirements for regular immigration and are therefore not subject to any financial qualification requirements. An illegal immigrant going to Spain would not be subject to the same restriction as legal immigrant because they are, em illegal. Same goes for refugees (legal) or legal immigrants working under a visa or from inside the EU. I’m not sure you could be more wrong if you tried.
The primary benefit of a land tax, in my view, would be that it might force sale of land to reduce estate sizes. That sold off land could be used to build homes on.
Likewise removing agricultural inheritance tax relief. This would prompt a significant redistribution of farmland from private ownership to giant corporations (who don’t pay inheritance tax). And, no doubt, re-enforce the popular belief that Labour, and Starmer in particular, hate the ethnic English.
Said land would probably need rezoning for building, prices would increase because people would need to get the tax money back on the deal, (they arent going to lose on the sale ) so prices go up, land that is green belt gets rezoned for housing, and every o0ne is worse off.
Very well said Richard. Labour could change the feeling of national depression at a stroke if they did this....and put a stop to rediculous, eye-watering 'bonuses' given to people who are already very wealthy.
10m not working because massive taxes mean there is no incentive to do so. The focus needs to be on reducing spending, rather than crushing workers and businesses.
Workers and businesses don't share the same values so I don't know why you have lumped them together. Amazon is a business and would you say it is being crushed through taxation? Unless you mean small businesses, then I share some sympathy. Reducing spending is the complete opposite of what we need to do. Public services and the public domain have already deteriorated so much in the UK, how can we possibly let that degradation carry on as you suggest? The private sector has ruined most of the public utilities they have been handed, such as water, rail, staffing, etc etc. They need to be removed from the public sector. 10 million are not working because of massive taxes? are you sure that's the reason, where did you get that analysis from?
Don't tax those who would otherwise spend and support the economy, tax instead those who have wealth that is not being spent or used to support the economy.
Brain drain is quite a strange (media created) and fairly disprespectful term to use. Especially considering it seems to discount the millions of people on so called 'low-skilled' work who do vastly more important work every day than your average banker and accountant does. You do realise we can also just train and educate people with the right public investment right? People who are willing to pay a fair share of tax relative to their wealth will always stay and work here. The others, good riddance to em. Many scientists and other professionals will gladly come from other countries to work here if necessary.
@@cleanhit777 He's advocating better targeted tax, and if you watched the video, he explains that it will benefit the majority of people and affect the wealthiest just a bit more. As it absolutely should. I would go even further and have a 100% tax rate on wealth and assets over £1 billion. Because we just do not need billionaires to exist.
Agree. Taxes are already the highest they've been in 70 years. How is that working out for everyone? On the "brain drain" - it's amazing how many people have left UK in recent years - YT is full of them! I don't know if they are in the official figures though.
I came to know of your work through an interview on Tskysour. I have listened to most of your content and find it extremely beneficial. It would be great if you did a course on economic literacy giving a broad education of economic concepts and their application to condemnatory political economics?
The kind of equity proposed in this video would also encourage growth. Trickle down is a lie: we have seen periods of higher growth after government-led investment. Put an extra £100 in the pocket of the average working family and they will spend it the local economy. Put the equivalent total in the accounts of the richest and they will either move it offshore or buy assets to rent back to us at extortionate prices. As the patriotic millionaires remind us: inequality stifles growth.
I spent 40 years working in the private sector and was, because of my job, required to reduce input costs from suppliers and providers by 3-5% EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And to do so with ever-decreasing headcount numbers in my team(s). The ethos was (and is) DO MORE WITH LESS. Until the state, central and local, can demonstrate its INTENTION to replicate that approach to managing cost, it can pi55 off simply asking me for more tax every year.
Very good you just make people redundant, who then will make up your consumers and tax payers, you know the people that pay tax and buy your goods and services???????????????????????????
@@scottyfive4319 I was fortunate enough to never have to make anyone compulsorily redundant. We're not talking about mass redundancies here. People made individual choices on where they were going to take their work, their education, or indeed bring forward their retirement plans. Not everyone who leaves work becomes economically inactive and becomes the recipient of state benefits.
@@davidatkinson-lifematters4826 Well I have been made redundant twice, once because the company ultimately moved to another country and once due to lack of orders, although 5 months later they received a world manufacturing order for an American oil company. Both times I was too young to retire and did different things. In my experience it is very rare for redundancy to come at the right time, having said that a few hundred of the 2.5K+ people made redundant at the first place I worked were within the 55 - 65 age group with often 30+ years of service, so had choices.
Pre-watch Comment - tax the assets, not the income. If you hit income too hard then the high earners will take their stash and go elsewhere but the assets are fixed in place (factories, machinery, power transformers etc). Evasion and avoidance will still go on of course.
HMRC have said raising CGT by 10% would reduce the amount gained by £2bn, this is the problem with socialist Labour economics, they don't work in the real world.. Have a CGT rate in line with income tax seem sensible until you realise you can buy assets in a company and pay way less, and some people hold assets for an extremely long time, if you earn £20k a year so are a 20% tax payer but have an asset that gains £10k a year but you sell it after 20yrs you will have a gain of £200k and pay 45% tax on a lot of it but if you invested elsewhere that gave you an income of £10k a year then over 20yrs you still get the £200k gain but you only pay 20% tax, that does not seem fair, if you invest in ISA's you can build up a substantial pot over the years and pay no tax... People will change their behaviour which is why HMRC say you will reduce the tax.. I stopped working 5yrs ago at 35 because I get income from other sources, if I work I pay 40% income tax and 9% NI, plus other taxes that were increased in the previous government and reduced allowances etc means my effective tax rate is 72%, after paying for commuting etc its just not worth me working, I pay way less tax than I did before and the higher taxation means the government gets less tax, I also spend less and am less productive so the government loses in reduced tax and the economy loses.... Read the story of the 10 blokes that went to the pub and paid for their beer in the same way tax is worked out and you will realise higher taxation is not the answer...
A lot of people paying relatively small amounts of CGT can probably "defer" the CGT to a later year if the person does not need the money to live on or, for example, if a landlord can keep renting somewhere out rather than sell a property. According to the government, most CGT comes from the small number of taxpayers who make the largest gains. In the 2022 to 2023 tax year, 41% of CGT came from those who made gains of £5 million or more. This group represents less than 1% of CGT taxpayers each year. 8% of CGT came from disposals that qualified for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) i.e. the selling or liquidation of companies. London and the South East of England accounted for around half of total gains (48%) and CGT liability (50%). About 10% came from property sales. Approximately one third of CGT taxpayers have gains under £25,000 and this group contributes around 1% of total CGT. 66% of total CGT comes from those making more than £1m gain. So why is the CGT allowance so bloody low? Raise the allowance a bit and raise the tax. If all the people making up to £50k gain were not taxed then CGT tax revenue would go down by just 3.5%. The admin burden would reduce and a large number of people will pay less individual tax while the richest can be taxed more. E.g. ignoring any allowance change, increase the tax by just 2% on those who make >£1m gain and you probably have an increase in CGT tax revenue of about 7%. Please, challenge my figures; they could be wrong.
Spot on Richard, all the arguments you make are justified by the end results. Labour have 5 years to make progress and they are off to a very bad start. They want growth? Reduce interest rates (I am certain "behind closed doors chats" could make this happen).Stop paying interest on money raised via the bank of England, re-start quantitative easing. Strict investigations on tax evasion; the list could go on and on. It is just about choices.
When have you ever heard of the government being smaller, more efficient, or a reduction of staff, never! Its constant expansion, borrowing, and waste. We are at an incredibly high amount of taxation. When will it stop?
Great Richard. You’ve itemised very clearly ways of increasing tax for redistribution. What I worry about is this will be the ‘austerity’ i.e. no redistribution and new help for the less well off or investment in a transformative economy that will deal with the existential tipping points of environmental and ecological issues the earth faces . I don’t think the National insurance should have been reduced. It promotes the idea of getting rid of Public Services, Social Security and a National Health Service at the point of need. Far better to raise the tax threshold
And that’s why I was so angry when we bent over backwards to accommodate the airline companies during the pandemic. I wonder how many thousands died of covid just because the companies wanted their profits and selfish barstards wanted their holidays 🤔🤬
From $37K to $65K that's the minimum range of profit return every month I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family. ❤️
Trading crypto now should be wise, but trading without an expert isn't advisable. I tried trading on my own but keep on losing. I think I'll give her a try
Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Rachel Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman
They need to have the difficult conversations with the likes of The Energy wholesalers, Amazon, Google, Starbucks ect who get away with paying little or no tax. The reason we needed a winter fuel allowance in the first place is because of the ridiculous cost of standing charges and fuel. Tax the greedy energy wholesalers.
You need to be more aware about how much someone on disability benefit actually gets!! Pip £185 ish a week, UC - rent plus £325 a week plus council tax, so all in all much more than the equivalent of £30k before tax for a working person!! Not to mention free travel, free parking and cost of living payment and warm home discount etc etc etc…… Who would be working on minimum wage eh!! A family member of mine struggled to spend it all and that was with Amazon wearing out the hallway carpets to his flat. Get real. And he was a single person!!
The vast majority of people on UC do not receive that amount at all. Are you talking about the maximum cap? Also, free travel and free parking? Are you just making this up? Send me links to where you got this information from please!
I had no idea there wasn't any yacht nor private plane tax. Not surprised either, mind. You have some great points & ideas. I like your train of thought. I've subscribed now 😊
High earner here, on exactly the same real-terms salary I was on 15 years ago, despite being an order of magnitude more productive and many rungs higher on the career ladder. Tax me, by all means, if it pulls up the people at the bottom and as long as the fantastically-wealthy get the same percentage increase that I do.
If you want to address the housing situation you need to take a serious look at immigration and population growth. As long as demand outstrips demand prices won’t fall
The ideas on capital gains are wrong and will cost money rather than raise it as people delay / stop the sale of assets to avoid the tax. This was shown by the support by the OBR, amongst others, for cutting capital gains tax on property in the recent Tory budget
It is interesting to note that the people of our nation who would pay out the most in the case for Inheritance Tax, the monarchy, are, thanks to an agreement drawn up by the Tory government in 1993, exempt from paying it. This is how "The Establishment" works for its members in Britain; one rule for the "common" folk, another for the super-wealthy. People foolishly believe we live in a democracy, we do not, we live rooted in an outdated, Medieval, monarchist system.
Agreed. Nice also if they applied some critical thinking to expand their time horizons, investment needed and the interplay between so many areas such as aging population, immigration, inadequate housing, growing wealth inequality, deteriorating public services etc. I don't even know what their vision is for these areas or the interplay between them.
Two things I totally disagree with. 1. Inheritance tax is state theft pure & simple. 2. Cars increasingly are falling into the “luxury” tax bands above £ 40K because of car price inflation since the pandemic. When they do taxes significantly increase. Drivers are the most taxed in the country. VAT on the purchase, road fund license, tax on car insurance, tax on fuel, tax on servicing, road tolls, car parking charges and your suggesting more! Labour should have not excluded income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax. They should look at higher bands for expensive houses for council tax. They could bring in a luxury VAT band, they can look at tax relief on pension payments and yes capital gains tax rates.
Maybe everyone that becomes an mp should be made to live on the current benefits limit, for say four weeks.. That would give them lived experience.. Plus save a pretty penny from their wages.
How is it that such an expert can be so blind? It’s completely hopeless to now tax people. Most of the wealth is being shuffled off abroad- think Amazon, think Bp, think essentially everything now. Creative accounting and tax havens are then used - but with the basic effect that this is where all the money is going, and very little of it ends up being taxed.
having thought it through for some time i've come the the well informed opinion that they should increase all tax for people who are just slightly more wealthy than me. but leave enough headroom so i'm not affected if my wealth grows.
Hi Richard. Good video! While I like other videos of yours on economics I always thought they were a bit too “theoretical”. This one gets to heart of it - ethical taxation, progressive taxation and redistribution. None are “dirty words” and the new Labour government should be focussing on communicating this rather than looking like rabbits in the headlights…
Capital gains tax on property would be a scam. If anybody knows this it’s the good professor. If my house goes up 5% it’s because the value of money has gone down 5%. So I gain nothing - but government tax me as if I have gained something, when I haven’t.
I worked for over 40 years.I saved and invested mych of my income.I am not rich but I have a moderately comfortable lifestyle.I'm just waiting for the government to tax me so that they can redistribute everything that I own.
VAT hits the poorest most because the poorest spend all their money, whereas the rich only spend a small fraction of their money. Tax should be on income, not spending.
@@tonyy452all the others I mentioned they are scared to tax , this guy is wrong about carbon , I thought he had more brains than get fooled by the climate wombles , the weather is not controlled by carbon , forget that and houses are not that expensive , people seem to believe they have a right to buy one without putting in the effort , if they work and save some money young people can easily afford high quality housing
@@helenheenan3447 you really think a carbon tax will change the weather ? If so can you detail what weather we can expect with differing levels of carbon tax ?
I'm 47, married and have six children aged 10 - 24 years old. I've encountered government services in multiple ways. There are some good interactions, but on balance I'd say whether Education, Health, Local Authority or Policing most have been below average or very poor. The inefficiency and waste I've witnessed in the NHS in relation to an elderly relative in the past three weeks beggars belief. Simply taxing a bit more or less, spending a bit more or less just isn't going to cut it. Anyone who tells you they know the answer is full of hubris. I'd recommend substantially devolution of services and revenue generation to allow different areas to try out different strategies. Some will work, some won't at least we'd learn and have the option to implement the successes more broadly. This government hell bent on control isn't going to generate the changes that are required. They are simply the modern day (irrespective of party) theatrical performers of politics.
Private yachts and jets are far and few. Would raise much money. When you hear that a rich person us using a private jet, it's usually a private charter.
Cars have grown enormously in size, which adds to an existing issue which also isn’t charged for properly; on street parking. 10m2 space for free or a minimal fee in most cases. I can park on the street for £12.50 a year. Cheapest land use going. How much could councils raise via charging properly?
Excellent narrative once again. For what its worth I don't think Labour have the spine to have a fair tax policy. They are too afraid of upsetting the markets. Its much easier to carry on punishing pensioners, those in need and disabled.
The rich. No brainer. They can afford it. And still remain rich. They have got away with obscene tax breaks from the Tories who have savagely plundered the public purse and resources to the benefit of these obscenely rich people. Labour did give a clue during the election campaign. They said the burden to fall on the 'broadest shoulders'. Remember? I haven't seen any of that yet, but maybe the Budget will give some indication. We shall see.
The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting. Multinationals exploit gaps and mismatches in the international tax system through a technique known as “profit-shifting”. This involves artificially allocating sales derived in one country to a lower-tax country. One of the ways this is achieved is by companies setting up a subsidiary in a tax haven and registering their intellectual property there. That entity then charges the company’s subsidiaries in other, higher-tax jurisdictions large royalty fees. By charging that “cost” to the market where the majority of revenues are made, profits can be reduced or eliminated, meaning no tax is paid. The royalty fees extracted in this way are booked as profit in the low-tax location. Profits are often shifted to countries such as the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda, which charge no corporation tax. Tax abuse by multinationals and avoidance by rich individuals costs countries around the world $427bn a year in lost revenues, according to research by the Tax Justice Network campaign group. The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting. Richard Partington (Guardian)
We have terribly inefficient use of our properties in the UK. On average, we have more bedrooms than people yet 70% of households have more people than bedrooms. Owner occupied properties are more likely to be under occupied than rented. We must not make it harder for people to downsize from properties they are under occupying. That is why Stamp Duty is a counterproductive tax. It discourages people from moving. We must not put it up. We should arguably abolish it. Prices do need to come down. But SDLT is a bad mechanism for doing this because of its other effects. Besides taxation, one option would be to replace the lender's right to exercise power of sale with a right to cut losses by selling bad loans to the government. The government would then be the chargee of the property (delegating management to the local authority) but would have a legal obligation not to make the occupants homeless. In most cases of people struggling, this would avoid them losing their home. In some cases, debtors could be moved to smaller properties. In the cases of landlords, the tennants would not become homeless as a result of the landlord defaulting on their loan. It could also make lending into the property market less attractive which could bring down prices by deleveraging.
There are lots of things we can do that aren´t radical, i.e raise the top band to 50-60%. We should also charge fuel duty on flights, it´s ludicrous that we´re effectively subsidising a polluting form of transport, when we could invest that money on better bus and train links. Also, we should have a general rule, no subsidies without taking a share in the company that receives them. There can be a very good case for business subsidies but we should receive a share of the profits proportional to what we put in, i.e I believe Tesco has managed to get over billion pounds worth of subsidies (things like Covid relief, business rates relief, various corporate tax credits), the company is worth about 12 billion, so the state should own 10% of the shares at least. People have no idea how much they are getting conned and it´s shocking.
@@mikefish8226 only for some of your income and it would still bring in plenty of money. As for fuel duty on flights, that was true in the EU, and it doesn´t affect domestic flights anyway.
@Minimmalmythicist What do you think I meant by "it can't be done on international flights" meant? You are just repeating back things in a different way that adds no value. There's very few domestic flights, for example MAN-LHR, is only 3 flights per day. Many of the domestic flights are actually supporting isolated and poorer communities like the Scottish islands. On "some of your income" above that, they are paying 45% and have no tax-free allowance and strict limits on pension contributions. The "rich" already pay the vast majority of income tax. We have a spending problem. We have an immigration problem. We don't have a tax being too low problem.
@@mikefish8226 "What do you think I meant by "it can't be done on international flights" meant? You are just repeating back things in a different way that adds no value" Wrong, I just looked it up, we couldn´t on EU flights when we were a member but now we can.
@@chrishart8548 Well while that is partly true (Rich people lobby the government) but it not 100% true or there would be less VAT on luxury items. But it will be the luxury good companies that would lobby government hardest as they will worry their sales will fall with higher VAT. The question is would an extra 5% or 10% VAT reduce consumption of luxury good... of that I am not sure and one way to find out is to give it a try.
Georgist economics is a grand idea as the elites can bugger off and leave the likes of the Westminster estate behind and the rents go to help the NHS etc.Job done!
I don't disagree with a land tax, but reducing or eliminating income tax benefits those with the highest incomes most. Income tax is a fair tax, where the less you earn, the less you pay and the more you earn the more you pay. This also deals with the imbalance where the wealthiest actually benefit the most from public services. Road infrastructure for transport of their goods and getting their workers to work. Roads aren't built for people to go on a weekend away. Then there's schools and colleges to train their workers and NHS to keep their workers working.
@@tonyy452 Those who earn through _production_ and providing _services_ deserve to keep what they earn. Most of the incomes of billionaires tends to be appropriation of economic rent anyhow, unearned income, freeloading. *LVT stops the freeloaders.* Those who produce, and hence we all gain, are rewarded. PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel supports land value tax as a way to fix the economy and housing, and reward the bright and innovative, like engineers. Thiel says he's partial to the theories of Henry George, who promoted LVT as its core.
I do love a good list of wealth taxation's, the frequent flyer levy is probably the easiest explain and could be popular. I guess some would be hard to implement but that shouldn't stop us at least trying.
If you use a credit card, then spending comes before income. Does not mean that they do not need to match... 'Bedroom tax' - so we should fund people living in houses much bigger than they need, and let those that are over-crowded stay where they are. More money to get a worse result... Inheritance tax- abolish it but charge recipients income tax on what they receive. Logical. Property prices- stop importing more people than you are building houses for. We are going backwards.
You tex the people who own the country you tax, the people that own your mortgage, you tax the people who own your debt own the assets of this country. They can’t remove these things so they can’t hide them. That’s the people who labour should be taxing.
Disagree with the intro suggesting that because Labour haven't announced their budget yet, they somehow don't already have a plan... bit silly. WFA should be means tested, I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with that, but they have gone a bit too far in their current iteration of that. E: Rest of the video is bang on
@@debbiegilmour6171perhaps a better way of putting it would be, which of these taxes would incentivise companies and people with wealth to invest in the UK. They seem to doing the reverse.
I do not agree with your suggestion to leverage more tax from property transactions. It is a tax on mobility. When industries decline and factories shut down we need the people in those areas to be more mobile so that they can move elsewhere to find work. We have over 40 years of decimated neighbourhoods and towns in the North East and South Wales because the people were put on permanent welfare and could not move away.
People earning a 100k salary are not the problem - they're already paying plenty of income tax, and contributing to the economy through their spending.
Nor are people retiring with 1m in assets (home+pension+ISAs) - that's just what is required for a comfortable retirement these days (house, travelling, eating out, supporting their grandkids etc), and we should be aiming for this to be the norm for a typical working person - not putting more barriers in the way.
The issue is people with tens of millions or more in assets, raking in interest and rent from the lower economic classes, and then just sitting on their pile of money rather than feeding the economy by spending it.
@@classawarrior Problem is, as soon as they sell an asset, they pay 40% CGT. Not a great incentive to divest…
I'm paying plenty of tax already. This government needs to start recouping those covid contract fraudsters.
But other people are not.
@DewiSant-o3y When I retire I'm planning on paying as little in tax as possible. I don't mind paying tax, I just don't like governments, especially Labour governments, squandering my money.
Tax the king
@@kw8757Am already retired and that’s exactly how I feel. If the tax I pay was put to good use I’d have no issue paying but when you look at the nonsensical ideas politicians have it’s clear the majority of our money gets wasted.
Tax Charles!!!
You're banging on like a true academic. Equity doesn't work in a society where some aspire and others don't. Why should I work hard if my earnings are mostly taken away from me so that i get the same as someone who hasn't put in the effort? Why should I save to be self sufficient in old age if those savings are then creamed off? All the most useful contributors will retire early or move elsewhere.
You're missing the point entirely. We should focus on taxing priviliged forms of wealth through inheritance, investment to shift the tax burden away from working people. Equity means equal opportunity, which promotes a hard working and aspirational society. Why should any non priveliged people work hard when they will be burdoned with raising all the tax and those that already have land and capital gains are coddled?
I reckon Reeves did ask the question "who should Labour tax" - and her new donor chums said "everyone but us"
Exactly 🤬
Everyone wants the tax not to fall on them. I'm on £40k so tax Everyone £45k and above
That's why taxing the mega rich is the way to go.the wealth of the uk billionaires has increased by 300% during the period of tory misrule rule.they are the people most able to shoulder the extra tax and that
Loss of wealth will have zero effect on their life style and will allow the country to make the investments so badly needed for rebuilding our frastucture which will benifit everyone in our country.
@JohnPark-xf2gq let's tax the king and lords, and stop taxing working people. Also cut all benefits. People should work
@@davidcooks2379 obviously people that can't work won't have to. How about paying an amount that incentives people to work.
Airlines are currently exempt from fuel duty, yet trains, cars, lorries, etc are not. It's true that nobody wants their imported food to suddenly become more expensive, but it would increase attempts to import from near neighbours when possible if there was a level playing field - in our case, Europe rather than the other side of the world.
I did not know this. It’s bizarre.
How much is commercial imports is via air compared to shipping? Does anyone know the figures?
This is a global issue - there doesn't seem to be any viable route for UK (for example) to apply a fuel duty tax on its own.
Short of a full global agreement, maybe it is not inconceivable for a pan-EU air fuel duty tax - allowing UK to come to some agreement on that single issue. But how that would work for flights not within the EU+UK, I really have no idea.
Fuel duty pays for roads. Airplanes (and boats) don't use roads.
@curtisnixon no it doesn't, your council tax pays for the roads. Fuel duty has nothing to do with it. That's the same old tired argument that grumpy old men use against cyclists, thinking that somehow they get to "hog" and use our roads "without paying for them!"
Fuel duty goes into a general taxation bucket. Your council will pay for repairs to the roads. But big trucks and heavy vehicles cause the most deterioration to these roads... So Amazon trucks, the trucks that deliver our food... These are all the main culprits here.
If she wishes to show that she is truly Labour and not just a Tory in a red rosette she should do as you say Richard. I am in total agreement.
Rachel Reeves is not, and never has been, a Labour politician. Neither indeed, is Keir Starmer. They are nothing other than closet Tories, and the current version of Labour is pure blue Tory as we are now discovering.
Davos doesn't allow support for workers, only billionaires.
But she won't, Do you think she will accomodate her pay master ? She will do what she thinks is right. Too stupid too see whats in front of her
The Dalek? @@HaydenCyclist
She's on the record as saying that Labour isn't a party for the unemployed.
Agreed… but I don’t think the current Labour leadership is ideologically on the same page with us…
They don't need to be. They're mission is to fix the economy, not fix everything.
@@OneAndOnlyMe their “mission” is to keep the system as is. See how well it works for you.
@@OneAndOnlyMe Their mission should be to implement the changes set out in their manifesto, which is rather more than just fix the economy.
Us?
You are entirely wrong on taxing pension contributions. It is not relief, it is delaying when you pay tax until the time you draw the funds. Otherwise you create double tax and strong disincentives to put money into a pension.
That’s not really true. I get 40% relief on my income but when I draw it out, I will be either using my 25% tax free allowance (so there’s a quarter gone straight away) and drawing the rest at either zero (up to my allowance) or at 20%.
Further more, there are plenty of ways to avoid double income taxation, so changing the point at which it’s taxed need not mean double taxation.
@@jamesreynolds4811 what isn't true? If you don't understand it is not a relief then I can't help you.
@@jamesreynolds4811if you’re getting 40% tax relief, you’re likely to end up paying 40% on your pension withdrawals as you’ll most likely have saved enough to move you into that income band when you take the income.
@@bjorn2625 no we won’t because we won’t be taking our income at a high rate. We will be paying 20% base tax. And that’s in a single income household for a couple (my wife earns, I raised the kids and support her) which increases our tax exposure compared to dual income households. No matter how you look at it, pension tax relief benefits the already well off the most. And that’s before you think about the 25% tax free allowance (possibly under review) which if managed properly will mean my wife (we) will probably pay under 5 or 10% on total retired income.
Even if we were to reach the higher rate threshold, the worst that would happen is that our gains would be clipped. We’d still only be paying zero or 20% tax on most of our income and not the 40% plus we’d be paying without pension tax relief.
All we have to do is keep my wife’s annual pension income below £50k to avoid 40% tax on it. Not including her 25% tax allowance. Even if she does go over £50k income, she’d only be paying 40% on the amount over £50k.
And then there’s the employer contribution, reduce NI contributions etc. The system heavily stacked towards the relatively already well off.
@@jchanning72 read my previous comment again. If I avoid paying 40% in my income by putting it in my pension (ignoring other employer contribution NI benefits) and then I my pension income is taken below the 40% threshold, I will pay less tax in my pension income.
I will not pay tax at all on the first £12k, then I will only pay 20% on the income between £12k and £50k.
If I took that as income (ignoring NI for simplicity, to demonstrate the hypothesis) now, I’d pay £20k of it as tax. If I take it as my pension, I’d pay about £7k. That’s a whopping third of the tax liability.
It is not deferment, it is avoidance.
If Labour adopted these policies they would indeed look like the adults in the room
Instead they look like clowns running the circus 🤯.
You do understand that clowns are only acting?
There is little there that would solve the chronic problems with the British economy.
Labour in government to manage decline. The only thruth Starmer said is that "its going to get worse".
No, to continue the decline with policies designed to do this.
Raise taxes, I leave. I don't go to work to redistribute my time and effort. This is ridiculous.
On your bike then. Never come back.
Bye then
@@SocietalDefibrilation Then you havn't got there tax if you tell everybody to leave.
Richard is not suggesting taxing YOU> he suggests taxing OTT things like flash yachts, smoking, big estates. He wants to lift people out of poverty, not allow the rich to continue to wallow in ludicrous revenues!!!
And they don't help you in your tasks in front of the boss
Isn't it depressing that such reasonable, rational and moderate ideas seem like radical revolution compared to what is actually on offer from this Labour government?
Since taxes are at a 70-year high, how about no-one. Let's sort out spending.
Funny how the solution is always more taxes, and never less government spending.
Exactly.
Taxes on top bracket earners are nowhere near the highest in 70 years. There's a beatles song about it.
@SocietalDefibrilation You need to understand the difference between tax rates and taxes. Taxes as a percentage of the economy are at the highest in over 70 years AND we are running a massive deficit. We are getting massive amounts of tax, what we have is a spending problem not a tax problem. Taxes are too high, higher than when the Beatles were complaining in song.
@@mikefish8226 Yes, but taxes are unfairly leveraged. That's the whole point, the tax burden as an overall percantage of the economy is high but it's not fairly distributed and directed in the right way. The government's plan makes no sense - expecting the private sector, which only interest is to maximise their own profits, to invest in public utilities (including labour) and infrastructure and then somehow this magical growth will result in higher tax revenues for the state which they will then use to finally invest in the public. It's all backwards. If we tax these corporations less, they won't just invest more, they'll pay more dividends to their shareholders. This has been clear for so long, it's absolute madness that a so-called Labour government believes in this ludicrous and demonstrably failed ideology. There's zero difference between this and the last government. The same neoliberal shite. Corporations and wealthy twats are running (ruining) this country.
The issue I see with raising all of the aforementioned tax rates is that you don’t end up actually taxing the real rich, the ones with trust funds and shell companies and ownership structures because these are the same people that fund the political parties’ election campaigns and so they will never actually redistribute wealth.
All your tax measures above will be paid by the same people that always brunt the majority of the tax reforms and that is the middle class, and whilst in the short term you may raise taxes, it will hinder growth and lead to an exodus of these high salarial earners to other countries with lower tax burdens. That’s because the people who pay the most tax aren’t employers and estate/business owners rather those who are employed and have a salary, and the companies who pay well are MNCs and so these people would have alternatives and be wanted elsewhere where they aren’t crucified for working hard and reaching the top.
Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?
Well said.
Typical left-wing thinking.
1st step is to identify & cut the wasted money. The options presented simply encourage tax to go up & up & up. That's the logical conclusion
"Going along your line of thought, should we redistribute GCSE grades from this who have the highest marks down to those who failed all of them?"
That's a strange analogy. You're either impyling that those people who got higher GCSE grades don't deserve them, or if they do, that billionaires deserve the billions that they have accumulated (stolen) through the work of other people. So, maybe you think that a billionaire has earnt that money all by themselves? Perhaps Elon Musk genuinely has worked hundreds of billions of times harder than his employees and has not benefitted from a lenient tax system and undemocratic corporate structures which favours, obviously, those in charge of decision making 🤣
@@mxj-x2r I had assumed that people would have interpreted this analogy in the context of my message as it would have made sense then, but I will expand on it so that you may understand.
First of all I am not implying that those who work hard for their grades don't deserve it, in fact it is the opposite I think they do. The same way the people earn good money (on salaries), have also had to have worked hard for them whether you like it or not.
Secondly, it is a quite black/white view by saying billionaires either all deserved or didn't deserve any of it. Also, Net worth is not actualised so it isn't liquid money, and often quite difficult to accurately calculate. Today Musk may be worth $200bn, but tomorrow after a market crash he could be worth $50bn. And success is decided on what you bring to the market, and if you can add value to people's lives. Supply and demand.
My point is that those billionaires wouldn't be in the conversation of having their GCSE results shared and redistributed because they would be the ones who would be absolved from it, as they would have helped those who would want that policy implemented, to get into power as they would have paid for their campaigns, and in return those ultra-wealthy would be protected.
All the other common folk like your middle and working class who would have had to have worked hard for their grades would be the ones punished once again.
That being said, no one earns billions by sitting on their arse, and I sense a bit of frustration (envy) at your describing of how they accumulated their wealth. Yes some may have accumulated their wealth in certain unfavourable ways, but don't let these hypocrites of labour socialists fool you into thinking they'll do something about it (Free-gear Keir is worth north of £7m, Corbyn the communist is worth north of £3m). They'll never be taxed or reprimanded for it because they pull the strings in the first place, funding their politicians to get into power. So don't expect their lenient tax-system to change in any way whatsoever. (Corporate structures is a whole 'nother topic where i agree that the marketplace is being monopolised by big funds - BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street - and give you the illusion of choice whilst squeezing every penny out of your pockets.)
It's early days yet but labour have truly lost their way forward .
Their rhetoric and their actions are two different things which is the worst case scenario because it's like being in the dark .
They never had a "way forward".
I work for the NHS and Labour have given a 5% pay rise. At my grade that equates to about £44 per month. I am also a single occupier who gets 25% discount on council tax. If that 25% discount is removed I will have to pay an additional £58 per month so that will wipe out my pay increase. With energy, water and insurances all going up I will be about £85 per month worse off. Whatever your income or budget, we will all be worse off in the long run and for me personally, probably the rest of my life.
Unlikely that you will lose the 25% discount on council tax.
Once again a perfect analysis and workable solutions! Thank you very much!
How is a farmer supposed to raise hundreds of thousands for inheritance tax without giving up farming ?
Why would the inheritance tax be hundreds of thousands? How much is the inheritance?
You can get agricultural relief.
@@debbiegilmour6171 ; Yes Debbie … You can get agricultural relief now - but in this video the mad professor is saying Labour should rid of it ! … (Which would cause a significant transfer of land from small holdings to giant corporations re-enforcing the belief that Labour, especially Starmer, hate the native English).
@@Hickalum It's not that they hate the native English (though that is a ridiculous notion for a party that is meant to be "British"), it's that they love mega corporations far too much.
But I'm sure nobody is suggesting that generational farmers be afflicted by a removal of agricultural relief.
This is very true and even with business inheritance the business may need to be sold off.
Why not cut costs first, rather than the knee jerk 'tax more'? Areas like overseas aid, pointless non medical staff in the NHS, excess staffing in the Civil Service and more...
Here is a clue for something to cut, just in from Germany’s Brandenburg election result:-
Greens … 0 Seats (down from 10 last time).
Many non-medical roles in the NHS are necessary, not pointless. Think about all the admin work that has to be done in a country-wide health system. Also, if you then cut a load of jobs, you lose out on the tax that you would have gained if they were still in work. If you were to, say, cut 100,000 public sector jobs, then those people will be unemployed, and there may well be 100,000 more people claiming universal credit. And that then means the fiscal deficit rises!! I'm not saying that every job in the public sector is vital, but we shouldn't try and implement deflationary policies to combat the economic mess that the UK is in right now. Especially because there is a much more reasonable response, one which Richard Murphy has talked about in many of his other videos - Modern Monetary Theory.
Overseas aid already was cut by a huge amount. Besides, that's not a lot compared to the revenue amounts that Richard has talked about. Why are you focusing on overseas aid and civil service staff? What do you think about capital gains tax? Corporation tax? Tax on wealth and assets and high polluters? What are your thoughts on those which we do not tax nowhere near enough
Because he’s a typical jealous bitter idiot who thinks it ok for people who’ve worked their arses off and subsequently get wealthy only to be forced to give it to strangers rather than their own families!
We have been had for centuries. The amount of educated people who genuinely think national economies are run like the household is staggering. When I tell them the messages from these very informative videos, they often look at me like I'm a moron. The general 'tax DOESN'T fund expenditure' message should be RAMMED home every single day. I recommend these videos to everyone I speak to and also "The secrets of Oz' video which tells the story of the Central Bank and usury scams absolutely brilliantly!
So, a large number of educated people believe one thing, and a single academic believes another. And you believe...
Agree and the stitch up just continues with the obvious establishment plants of Starmer and Reeves.
Before they follow your suggestion of redistributing wealth by further taxing those of us who have been prudent, worked hard, and made the choice to sacrifice our free time and other pleasures to make a good living for us and our families, perhaps the government should address mass immigration? Why should any of us work hard to help support the lifestyles of the ten million people in this country who were not born here or the millions more coming each year, most poor and poorly educated? Society cannot function like that. If you want to raise taxes, start by simplifying the tax laws and close the numerous loopholes which allows multi national corporations and UHNW individuals legally avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
That! Worked 75+ hours on average every week over my entire working life. Didn't pay myself dividends because it was wrong IMO, so paid myself PAYE. I'm not very wealthy, just about scrape into the millionaire bracket, but I worked hard for every penny. There should be some recognition of that.
Why not rather then taxing income. Tax ownership if assets directly such as if you operate a business in the UK instead of taxing a proportion of the profits the government owns a % of the business this could be sold if revenue needed to be raised or more investment could be provided to sectors which need support. The same principal could be applied to property.
Illegal immigrants …..no money can’t come in . Try registering in Spain as a resident to retire if you haven’t got money .
One rule for them one rule for us .
Cut MPS fuel allowance to Zero . That’ll also help their net zero con job .
Labour utter disgrace ……resign .
wow - what a take!
@@RobinHarding-ep1ud weird misunderstanding of the world.
Illegal immigrants (sic) are by definition outside the normal requirements for regular immigration and are therefore not subject to any financial qualification requirements. An illegal immigrant going to Spain would not be subject to the same restriction as legal immigrant because they are, em illegal. Same goes for refugees (legal) or legal immigrants working under a visa or from inside the EU.
I’m not sure you could be more wrong if you tried.
The primary benefit of a land tax, in my view, would be that it might force sale of land to reduce estate sizes. That sold off land could be used to build homes on.
Likewise removing agricultural inheritance tax relief. This would prompt a significant redistribution of farmland from private ownership to giant corporations (who don’t pay inheritance tax). And, no doubt, re-enforce the popular belief that Labour, and Starmer in particular, hate the ethnic English.
Said land would probably need rezoning for building, prices would increase because people would need to get the tax money back on the deal, (they arent going to lose on the sale ) so prices go up, land that is green belt gets rezoned for housing, and every o0ne is worse off.
There are plenty of people shouting for higher taxes. They should be first.
Really I’ve not heard them?
Very well said Richard. Labour could change the feeling of national depression at a stroke if they did this....and put a stop to rediculous, eye-watering 'bonuses' given to people who are already very wealthy.
10m not working because massive taxes mean there is no incentive to do so. The focus needs to be on reducing spending, rather than crushing workers and businesses.
Workers and businesses don't share the same values so I don't know why you have lumped them together. Amazon is a business and would you say it is being crushed through taxation? Unless you mean small businesses, then I share some sympathy. Reducing spending is the complete opposite of what we need to do. Public services and the public domain have already deteriorated so much in the UK, how can we possibly let that degradation carry on as you suggest? The private sector has ruined most of the public utilities they have been handed, such as water, rail, staffing, etc etc. They need to be removed from the public sector. 10 million are not working because of massive taxes? are you sure that's the reason, where did you get that analysis from?
Don't tax those who would otherwise spend and support the economy, tax instead those who have wealth that is not being spent or used to support the economy.
I don't know about tax. But they should definitely claim that dodgy ppe contract money back..
...it's like an unrelenting rollercoaster of common sense. Another exceptional video, thank you.
You need to look into the detail though
Silent brain drain currently in progress in UK. No surprises why. Tax under Tories increased dramaticlly in past 7 years.
And this guy is advocating more.
Brain drain is quite a strange (media created) and fairly disprespectful term to use. Especially considering it seems to discount the millions of people on so called 'low-skilled' work who do vastly more important work every day than your average banker and accountant does. You do realise we can also just train and educate people with the right public investment right? People who are willing to pay a fair share of tax relative to their wealth will always stay and work here. The others, good riddance to em. Many scientists and other professionals will gladly come from other countries to work here if necessary.
@@cleanhit777 He's advocating better targeted tax, and if you watched the video, he explains that it will benefit the majority of people and affect the wealthiest just a bit more. As it absolutely should. I would go even further and have a 100% tax rate on wealth and assets over £1 billion. Because we just do not need billionaires to exist.
Agree. Taxes are already the highest they've been in 70 years. How is that working out for everyone? On the "brain drain" - it's amazing how many people have left UK in recent years - YT is full of them! I don't know if they are in the official figures though.
They should make sure that all the MPs pay the full rate of tax on their generous salaries !
I came to know of your work through an interview on Tskysour. I have listened to most of your content and find it extremely beneficial. It would be great if you did a course on economic literacy giving a broad education of economic concepts and their application to condemnatory political economics?
This channel is it...
The kind of equity proposed in this video would also encourage growth. Trickle down is a lie: we have seen periods of higher growth after government-led investment. Put an extra £100 in the pocket of the average working family and they will spend it the local economy. Put the equivalent total in the accounts of the richest and they will either move it offshore or buy assets to rent back to us at extortionate prices. As the patriotic millionaires remind us: inequality stifles growth.
Thank you for putting my thoughts into a coherent form! (Much better than my e-mails to my MP!)
Now you have a great template to us😃
Very clear and progressive message.
Yes, yes, YES! 100% agreement from me. ❤
I spent 40 years working in the private sector and was, because of my job, required to reduce input costs from suppliers and providers by 3-5% EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And to do so with ever-decreasing headcount numbers in my team(s). The ethos was (and is) DO MORE WITH LESS.
Until the state, central and local, can demonstrate its INTENTION to replicate that approach to managing cost, it can pi55 off simply asking me for more tax every year.
Very good you just make people redundant, who then will make up your consumers and tax payers, you know the people that pay tax and buy your goods and services???????????????????????????
@@scottyfive4319 I was fortunate enough to never have to make anyone compulsorily redundant. We're not talking about mass redundancies here. People made individual choices on where they were going to take their work, their education, or indeed bring forward their retirement plans. Not everyone who leaves work becomes economically inactive and becomes the recipient of state benefits.
@@davidatkinson-lifematters4826 Well I have been made redundant twice, once because the company ultimately moved to another country and once due to lack of orders, although 5 months later they received a world manufacturing order for an American oil company. Both times I was too young to retire and did different things. In my experience it is very rare for redundancy to come at the right time, having said that a few hundred of the 2.5K+ people made redundant at the first place I worked were within the 55 - 65 age group with often 30+ years of service, so had choices.
Wait until you hear about the massive private sector bureaucracy and consultancy work they spaff billions on. You'll be fuming!
Pre-watch Comment - tax the assets, not the income. If you hit income too hard then the high earners will take their stash and go elsewhere but the assets are fixed in place (factories, machinery, power transformers etc). Evasion and avoidance will still go on of course.
HMRC have said raising CGT by 10% would reduce the amount gained by £2bn, this is the problem with socialist Labour economics, they don't work in the real world.. Have a CGT rate in line with income tax seem sensible until you realise you can buy assets in a company and pay way less, and some people hold assets for an extremely long time, if you earn £20k a year so are a 20% tax payer but have an asset that gains £10k a year but you sell it after 20yrs you will have a gain of £200k and pay 45% tax on a lot of it but if you invested elsewhere that gave you an income of £10k a year then over 20yrs you still get the £200k gain but you only pay 20% tax, that does not seem fair, if you invest in ISA's you can build up a substantial pot over the years and pay no tax... People will change their behaviour which is why HMRC say you will reduce the tax.. I stopped working 5yrs ago at 35 because I get income from other sources, if I work I pay 40% income tax and 9% NI, plus other taxes that were increased in the previous government and reduced allowances etc means my effective tax rate is 72%, after paying for commuting etc its just not worth me working, I pay way less tax than I did before and the higher taxation means the government gets less tax, I also spend less and am less productive so the government loses in reduced tax and the economy loses.... Read the story of the 10 blokes that went to the pub and paid for their beer in the same way tax is worked out and you will realise higher taxation is not the answer...
A lot of people paying relatively small amounts of CGT can probably "defer" the CGT to a later year if the person does not need the money to live on or, for example, if a landlord can keep renting somewhere out rather than sell a property. According to the government, most CGT comes from the small number of taxpayers who make the largest gains. In the 2022 to 2023 tax year, 41% of CGT came from those who made gains of £5 million or more. This group represents less than 1% of CGT taxpayers each year. 8% of CGT came from disposals that qualified for Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) i.e. the selling or liquidation of companies. London and the South East of England accounted for around half of total gains (48%) and CGT liability (50%). About 10% came from property sales. Approximately one third of CGT taxpayers have gains under £25,000 and this group contributes around 1% of total CGT. 66% of total CGT comes from those making more than £1m gain. So why is the CGT allowance so bloody low? Raise the allowance a bit and raise the tax. If all the people making up to £50k gain were not taxed then CGT tax revenue would go down by just 3.5%. The admin burden would reduce and a large number of people will pay less individual tax while the richest can be taxed more. E.g. ignoring any allowance change, increase the tax by just 2% on those who make >£1m gain and you probably have an increase in CGT tax revenue of about 7%. Please, challenge my figures; they could be wrong.
@@jam99 If you raise it then it should be index linked, quite simple so assets that you have held for a long time do not get disproportionately taxed.
Spot on Richard, all the arguments you make are justified by the end results. Labour have 5 years to make progress and they are off to a very bad start. They want growth? Reduce interest rates (I am certain "behind closed doors chats" could make this happen).Stop paying interest on money raised via the bank of England, re-start quantitative easing. Strict investigations on tax evasion; the list could go on and on. It is just about choices.
Good idea's but their is no way the chancellor will listen. She just wants to inflict pain on the poor and pensioners.
Na! She is just Frit!
She showed these disturbing proclivities in 2015, and has been rewarded by the plum job...
When have you ever heard of the government being smaller, more efficient, or a reduction of staff, never! Its constant expansion, borrowing, and waste. We are at an incredibly high amount of taxation. When will it stop?
Great Richard. You’ve itemised very clearly ways of increasing tax for redistribution. What I worry about is this will be the ‘austerity’ i.e. no redistribution and new help for the less well off or investment in a transformative economy that will deal with the existential tipping points of environmental and ecological issues the earth faces . I don’t think the National insurance should have been reduced. It promotes the idea of getting rid of Public Services, Social Security and a National Health Service at the point of need. Far better to raise the tax threshold
And that’s why I was so angry when we bent over backwards to accommodate the airline companies during the pandemic. I wonder how many thousands died of covid just because the companies wanted their profits and selfish barstards wanted their holidays 🤔🤬
From $37K to $65K that's the minimum range of profit return every month I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family. ❤️
As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by a widely known crypto consultant
She is Expert Rachel Friedman
Trading crypto now should be wise, but trading without an expert isn't advisable. I tried trading on my own but keep on losing. I think I'll give her a try
Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Rachel Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman
Her name rings a bell; I've encountered it multiple times, usually associated with stories of her trading achievements. She deserves a lot of credit.
They need to have the difficult conversations with the likes of The Energy wholesalers, Amazon, Google, Starbucks ect who get away with paying little or no tax.
The reason we needed a winter fuel allowance in the first place is because of the ridiculous cost of standing charges and fuel.
Tax the greedy energy wholesalers.
You need to be more aware about how much someone on disability benefit actually gets!! Pip £185 ish a week, UC - rent plus £325 a week plus council tax, so all in all much more than the equivalent of £30k before tax for a working person!! Not to mention free travel, free parking and cost of living payment and warm home discount etc etc etc…… Who would be working on minimum wage eh!! A family member of mine struggled to spend it all and that was with Amazon wearing out the hallway carpets to his flat. Get real. And he was a single person!!
The vast majority of people on UC do not receive that amount at all. Are you talking about the maximum cap? Also, free travel and free parking? Are you just making this up? Send me links to where you got this information from please!
This makes a lot of sense to me.
Should be cutting expenditure! Foreign aid, Illegal immigrant hotels, foreign climate aid, net-zero, green energy subsidies, DEI policies.
I had no idea there wasn't any yacht nor private plane tax. Not surprised either, mind. You have some great points & ideas. I like your train of thought. I've subscribed now 😊
High earner here, on exactly the same real-terms salary I was on 15 years ago, despite being an order of magnitude more productive and many rungs higher on the career ladder. Tax me, by all means, if it pulls up the people at the bottom and as long as the fantastically-wealthy get the same percentage increase that I do.
If you want to address the housing situation you need to take a serious look at immigration and population growth. As long as demand outstrips demand prices won’t fall
The ideas on capital gains are wrong and will cost money rather than raise it as people delay / stop the sale of assets to avoid the tax. This was shown by the support by the OBR, amongst others, for cutting capital gains tax on property in the recent Tory budget
What a good contribution! In 10 minutes Richard Murphy has laid out the bare bones of a progressive tax system.
It is interesting to note that the people of our nation who would pay out the most in the case for Inheritance Tax, the monarchy, are, thanks to an agreement drawn up by the Tory government in 1993, exempt from paying it. This is how "The Establishment" works for its members in Britain; one rule for the "common" folk, another for the super-wealthy. People foolishly believe we live in a democracy, we do not, we live rooted in an outdated, Medieval, monarchist system.
Agreed. Nice also if they applied some critical thinking to expand their time horizons, investment needed and the interplay between so many areas such as aging population, immigration, inadequate housing, growing wealth inequality, deteriorating public services etc. I don't even know what their vision is for these areas or the interplay between them.
Richard ! Outstanding summary …. You wouldn’t consider joining REFORM ? You would deliver a surge on votes ….. serious !
Why not start with a scrutiny of spending, and just making current taxation fair and even, then further and perhaps obscene taxes may not be needed.
Two things I totally disagree with. 1. Inheritance tax is state theft pure & simple.
2. Cars increasingly are falling into the “luxury” tax bands above £ 40K because of car price inflation since the pandemic. When they do taxes significantly increase. Drivers are the most taxed in the country. VAT on the purchase, road fund license, tax on car insurance, tax on fuel, tax on servicing, road tolls, car parking charges and your suggesting more!
Labour should have not excluded income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax. They should look at higher bands for expensive houses for council tax. They could bring in a luxury VAT band, they can look at tax relief on pension payments and yes capital gains tax rates.
Maybe everyone that becomes an mp should be made to live on the current benefits limit, for say four weeks.. That would give them lived experience.. Plus save a pretty penny from their wages.
How is it that such an expert can be so blind? It’s completely hopeless to now tax people. Most of the wealth is being shuffled off abroad- think Amazon, think Bp, think essentially everything now. Creative accounting and tax havens are then used - but with the basic effect that this is where all the money is going, and very little of it ends up being taxed.
having thought it through for some time i've come the the well informed opinion that they should increase all tax for people who are just slightly more wealthy than me. but leave enough headroom so i'm not affected if my wealth grows.
Hi Richard. Good video! While I like other videos of yours on economics I always thought they were a bit too “theoretical”. This one gets to heart of it - ethical taxation, progressive taxation and redistribution. None are “dirty words” and the new Labour government should be focussing on communicating this rather than looking like rabbits in the headlights…
Capital gains tax on property would be a scam. If anybody knows this it’s the good professor. If my house goes up 5% it’s because the value of money has gone down 5%.
So I gain nothing - but government tax me as if I have gained something, when I haven’t.
Unless you have more than one house.
PM - MP's - the Lords - senior civil servants - the judges and lawyers would be a good start.
What ??? … Is Labour running out of other people’s money already ???
It upsets me that a Labour government as a whole appears so clueless.
I worked for over 40 years.I saved and invested mych of my income.I am not rich but I have a moderately comfortable lifestyle.I'm just waiting for the government to tax me so that they can redistribute everything that I own.
Tax football clubs , Amazon , McDonalds , Pfizer , Monsanto , cruise ships , Tesco , Sainsbury’s , leave farmers alone and increase VAT
VAT hits the poorest most because the poorest spend all their money, whereas the rich only spend a small fraction of their money.
Tax should be on income, not spending.
@@tonyy452all the others I mentioned they are scared to tax , this guy is wrong about carbon , I thought he had more brains than get fooled by the climate wombles , the weather is not controlled by carbon , forget that and houses are not that expensive , people seem to believe they have a right to buy one without putting in the effort , if they work and save some money young people can easily afford high quality housing
@@v8interceptor134 You refer to "climate wombles". Do you really expect your comments to be taken seriously?
@@helenheenan3447 you really think a carbon tax will change the weather ? If so can you detail what weather we can expect with differing levels of carbon tax ?
I'm 47, married and have six children aged 10 - 24 years old. I've encountered government services in multiple ways. There are some good interactions, but on balance I'd say whether Education, Health, Local Authority or Policing most have been below average or very poor. The inefficiency and waste I've witnessed in the NHS in relation to an elderly relative in the past three weeks beggars belief. Simply taxing a bit more or less, spending a bit more or less just isn't going to cut it.
Anyone who tells you they know the answer is full of hubris.
I'd recommend substantially devolution of services and revenue generation to allow different areas to try out different strategies. Some will work, some won't at least we'd learn and have the option to implement the successes more broadly.
This government hell bent on control isn't going to generate the changes that are required. They are simply the modern day (irrespective of party) theatrical performers of politics.
Instead of taxing, they should reduce benefits, privatise healthcare and education, expell all the needy immigrants
Private yachts and jets are far and few. Would raise much money. When you hear that a rich person us using a private jet, it's usually a private charter.
Cars have grown enormously in size, which adds to an existing issue which also isn’t charged for properly; on street parking. 10m2 space for free or a minimal fee in most cases. I can park on the street for £12.50 a year. Cheapest land use going. How much could councils raise via charging properly?
Excellent narrative once again. For what its worth I don't think Labour have the spine to have a fair tax policy. They are too afraid of upsetting the markets. Its much easier to carry on punishing pensioners, those in need and disabled.
The rich. No brainer. They can afford it. And still remain rich.
They have got away with obscene tax breaks from the Tories who have savagely plundered the public purse and resources to the benefit of these obscenely rich people.
Labour did give a clue during the election campaign. They said the burden to fall on the 'broadest shoulders'. Remember? I haven't seen any of that yet, but maybe the Budget will give some indication. We shall see.
@27july1954: the problem is how to define rich. One person's rich is another person's well-off, is another's poor. How do you define rich?
I agree with Richard,
and the Tax Monies should be spent on the UK Public 1stly,....Then we can give Charity to the World.
Labour should tax their donors, 😂
The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting.
Multinationals exploit gaps and mismatches in the international tax system through a technique known as “profit-shifting”. This involves artificially allocating sales derived in one country to a lower-tax country. One of the ways this is achieved is by companies setting up a subsidiary in a tax haven and registering their intellectual property there. That entity then charges the company’s subsidiaries in other, higher-tax jurisdictions large royalty fees. By charging that “cost” to the market where the majority of revenues are made, profits can be reduced or eliminated, meaning no tax is paid. The royalty fees extracted in this way are booked as profit in the low-tax location. Profits are often shifted to countries such as the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda, which charge no corporation tax.
Tax abuse by multinationals and avoidance by rich individuals costs countries around the world $427bn a year in lost revenues, according to research by the Tax Justice Network campaign group. The UK is estimated to lose £25bn of tax income due to profit-shifting.
Richard Partington (Guardian)
Hammer unearned money. Yes that includes the money whipped from workers to fatten the higher ups.
Wow. I couldn't agree more.
There are the lazy rich and the hardworking rich. The latter should be left alone.
Murphy should think harder about the consequences of tax and the phenomenon of tax incidence. The benefits of these proposals are vanishingly small.
We have terribly inefficient use of our properties in the UK. On average, we have more bedrooms than people yet 70% of households have more people than bedrooms. Owner occupied properties are more likely to be under occupied than rented.
We must not make it harder for people to downsize from properties they are under occupying. That is why Stamp Duty is a counterproductive tax. It discourages people from moving. We must not put it up. We should arguably abolish it.
Prices do need to come down. But SDLT is a bad mechanism for doing this because of its other effects.
Besides taxation, one option would be to replace the lender's right to exercise power of sale with a right to cut losses by selling bad loans to the government.
The government would then be the chargee of the property (delegating management to the local authority) but would have a legal obligation not to make the occupants homeless. In most cases of people struggling, this would avoid them losing their home. In some cases, debtors could be moved to smaller properties. In the cases of landlords, the tennants would not become homeless as a result of the landlord defaulting on their loan. It could also make lending into the property market less attractive which could bring down prices by deleveraging.
used to call that council houses think they got rid of most of them by selling them off cheap
There are lots of things we can do that aren´t radical, i.e raise the top band to 50-60%. We should also charge fuel duty on flights, it´s ludicrous that we´re effectively subsidising a polluting form of transport, when we could invest that money on better bus and train links.
Also, we should have a general rule, no subsidies without taking a share in the company that receives them. There can be a very good case for business subsidies but we should receive a share of the profits proportional to what we put in, i.e I believe Tesco has managed to get over billion pounds worth of subsidies (things like Covid relief, business rates relief, various corporate tax credits), the company is worth about 12 billion, so the state should own 10% of the shares at least.
People have no idea how much they are getting conned and it´s shocking.
People already pay an effective rate of 62% between £100-125k. On fuel duty on flights, by treaty, it can't be done on international flights.
@@mikefish8226 only for some of your income and it would still bring in plenty of money.
As for fuel duty on flights, that was true in the EU, and it doesn´t affect domestic flights anyway.
@Minimmalmythicist What do you think I meant by "it can't be done on international flights" meant? You are just repeating back things in a different way that adds no value. There's very few domestic flights, for example MAN-LHR, is only 3 flights per day. Many of the domestic flights are actually supporting isolated and poorer communities like the Scottish islands. On "some of your income" above that, they are paying 45% and have no tax-free allowance and strict limits on pension contributions. The "rich" already pay the vast majority of income tax. We have a spending problem. We have an immigration problem. We don't have a tax being too low problem.
@@mikefish8226 "What do you think I meant by "it can't be done on international flights" meant? You are just repeating back things in a different way that adds no value"
Wrong, I just looked it up, we couldn´t on EU flights when we were a member but now we can.
@@mikefish8226 "There's very few domestic flights, for example MAN-LHR, is only 3 flights per day"
Wrong Easyjet has about 60,000 in a year
Could have a higher rate of VAT for luxury items.
But the people that buy luxury items won't want that. And they get to decide the rules
@@chrishart8548 Well while that is partly true (Rich people lobby the government) but it not 100% true or there would be less VAT on luxury items. But it will be the luxury good companies that would lobby government hardest as they will worry their sales will fall with higher VAT. The question is would an extra 5% or 10% VAT reduce consumption of luxury good... of that I am not sure and one way to find out is to give it a try.
What is a luxury item? Surely a 72inch TV is a luxury when a 24" one is sufficient for most people. Any other bright ideas?
@@kevinsyd2012 I've been given 3x 42" lcd TV for free as friends upgraded. It's actually really small it's hard to see wants even going on
@@smellypunks Hey, I know. Why don't we give Communism a go as well?. Lenin and Marx can't BOTH be wrong.
Perhaps recovering tax revenue lost through evasion and avoidance would help.
But what about the threat that private businesses won't invest if the current tax regime is changed drastically ?
We are tired of over taxation and crap services bought for our taxes
Labour should tax land by its *value,* leaving our incomes in our pockets.
Georgist economics is a grand idea as the elites can bugger off and leave the likes of the Westminster estate behind and the rents go to help the NHS etc.Job done!
I don't disagree with a land tax, but reducing or eliminating income tax benefits those with the highest incomes most. Income tax is a fair tax, where the less you earn, the less you pay and the more you earn the more you pay.
This also deals with the imbalance where the wealthiest actually benefit the most from public services. Road infrastructure for transport of their goods and getting their workers to work. Roads aren't built for people to go on a weekend away. Then there's schools and colleges to train their workers and NHS to keep their workers working.
@@tonyy452
Those who earn through _production_ and providing _services_ deserve to keep what they earn. Most of the incomes of billionaires tends to be appropriation of economic rent anyhow, unearned income, freeloading.
*LVT stops the freeloaders.* Those who produce, and hence we all gain, are rewarded.
PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel supports land value tax as a way to fix the economy and housing, and reward the bright and innovative, like engineers. Thiel says he's partial to the theories of Henry George, who promoted LVT as its core.
Many great proposals but land tax should replace stamp duty entirely as the latter discourages downsizing. Look at how high land tax is in USA.
I do love a good list of wealth taxation's, the frequent flyer levy is probably the easiest explain and could be popular. I guess some would be hard to implement but that shouldn't stop us at least trying.
Verily amen!
If you use a credit card, then spending comes before income. Does not mean that they do not need to match...
'Bedroom tax' - so we should fund people living in houses much bigger than they need, and let those that are over-crowded stay where they are. More money to get a worse result...
Inheritance tax- abolish it but charge recipients income tax on what they receive. Logical.
Property prices- stop importing more people than you are building houses for. We are going backwards.
Bedroom tax..encourage older people to downsize by building more one bedroom size units!
@ just remove single occupant discount- larger properties are already taxed more. Count bedrooms and suddenly I have a gym, study, and library…
Now, now! We mustn't upset our tailor otherwise we will not get any nice new clothes or glasses.
You tex the people who own the country you tax, the people that own your mortgage, you tax the people who own your debt own the assets of this country. They can’t remove these things so they can’t hide them. That’s the people who labour should be taxing.
Disagree with the intro suggesting that because Labour haven't announced their budget yet, they somehow don't already have a plan... bit silly. WFA should be means tested, I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with that, but they have gone a bit too far in their current iteration of that.
E: Rest of the video is bang on
How do these taxes improve investment
What sort of investments? And what sort of taxes?
@@debbiegilmour6171perhaps a better way of putting it would be, which of these taxes would incentivise companies and people with wealth to invest in the UK. They seem to doing the reverse.
Agree fully......but it won't happen.
I do not agree with your suggestion to leverage more tax from property transactions. It is a tax on mobility. When industries decline and factories shut down we need the people in those areas to be more mobile so that they can move elsewhere to find work. We have over 40 years of decimated neighbourhoods and towns in the North East and South Wales because the people were put on permanent welfare and could not move away.