@@advocate1563 and why don't you want to look at them? It sounds like you're saying they're just normal people but, by definition, they are extremely unusual and in the wealthiest subset.
It's much harder to tax the very wealthy more than once (unless you also have an exit tax) and it clearly encourages entrepreneurs to set up their businesses outside the UK which is terrible for the UK
@@phueal The OP doesn't specifically mention land and the only reason that the wealthy currently own so much land is because of inheritance tax rules. If you change those you might get a one off windfall but, longer term it wouldn't help as the wealthy wouldn't invest in land anymore.
@@SmileyEmoji42 oh sorry! I actually thought this was a different thread. I’m going to delete my former message because it is nonsensical now. I don’t have a particular response to your challenge about taxing the very wealthy. I support a Land Value Tax (what I thought this thread was about at a glance!), which would hit them and which they could take out of the country, but otherwise I was simply saying it’s reasonable to examine ways of taxing the top 1%, not just the top 0.1%, because the top 1% are still very wealthy people.
At the end its '75% of all the wealth is in property and pensions anyway' - should have spent the whole episode talking about that then! Im sure itll be in another episode somewhere.. esp. interested in if/how tax system creates distortions in housing market, aside from obviously stamp duty.
I’ve always been vaguely confused by the logic of inheritance tax. The panel seemed to take it as a given this should be higher/more etc… Can someone who supports it explain why people should be taxed on all the wealth they’ve worked for their entire life because they’ve died. It doesn’t cost the government a penny when someone dies, so what and why are they taxing it - can someone explain the logic of the position?
But the dividend tax is already subject to corporation tax. The 39.35% you mention vs 45%. That's 39.35% on already taxed at 19% gross profit. So a 51% tax rate. Of 100 gross profit the human gets 49, taxman 51. You either a) don't know this as not at all knowledgeable b) do know this, but assume audience is dumb and you have a biased political agenda. In this case it is clearly b. If you want dividend tax equal to that on income. Then need zero corporation tax (or full tax relief on dividends). Not dissimilar to.... the case when Labour came in. So same as they mentioned on capital gains tax. True also for the tax relief issue, Brown's "raid on pension funds". It's almost. Almost. Like 80s under Thatcher = financially literate. Minute Labour come in = Envy = looks good but shock of unintended consequences which actually fully pre known by the financially literate
@danielwebb8402 you had me until you imply the Tories are more financially literate. Not the last 4 at thr very least and none wuite as good as Blair for even longer.
The dividend tax is not subject to corporation tax any more than salaries are subject to corporation tax. Yes, the corporation has had to pay tax on its profits, before paying out dividends; and it has had to pay tax on its profits before paying out salaries. They are completely different taxes.
Surely, the main argument for a lower rate of capital gains tax vs income is that a) the capital invested was post income tax in most cases and b) the capital was at risk. This is also why carried interest should absolutely be taxed as income because it required no capital to invest and is not at risk.
My savings are invested post income too. The "only tax once" idea seems superficially right but it really isn't - It would massively advantage the rich who have more income to invest.
Inependent Tax specialist does not mean having no political affiliation. It means that you pay for his advice and he doesn't have a financial interest in what that advice is. (That's not my opinion, that's is actually what the term legally means).
So you save from your income (Taxed and NI already taken). Invest that money. it grows and your taxed on that growth. so taxed twice. now your saying raise the 2nd tax. blimey
All money is taxed twice (in fact much more than twice). Your company earned some money - they pay corporation tax. They use some of that money to pay you - they pay NI, you pay income tax. You use some of that money to buy a nice pair of (adult) trousers - you pay VAT. Your trousers go up in value 10,000% and so you sell them - you pay capital gains tax. And so on. Money is taxed again and again when it changes hands, and sometimes when it's not changing hands. I don't know where you got the impression that money would be taxed once and that's it.
@@phueal I know money is taxed multiple times so I agree. I was making the point that the speakers where stating cgt should be higher as income tax is higher. Ie to match. Justification being those earning investment income are paying less than those earning wages. So point being they are the same. My point is they are not the same. You paid income tax and NI before you made investments that then are taxed if there are gains. Cgt. So not a fair justication at all.
@@philipwood123 it’s a fair criticism; their justification was for situations where CGT is being used as a way of paying yourself, like the fund managers example they gave. But it’s true that that rationale is situational.
Problem is a lot of money is increasingly going into non-productive assets eg. Buying property and inflating prices. Taxing wealth has the potential to reduce asset inflation that has negative consequences on society (eg. property value rises exceeding wage growth) and reinvest it instead in generating actual economic activity, such as in healthcare that provides multiple benefits.
@@tbatallen so people can't better their situations over the decades? Better keep everyone poor and that will drive Economic activity will it? Think not. Property development creates a tonne of economic activity. Trades, agents, solicitors etc.
Interesting listen. I'm currently trying to get my head around various allowances and strategies etc. so this was useful.
Should actually clarify “Top 1% of Income” earners paying tax.
“Top 1% of wealth” would be a more interesting topic.
Actually top 0.1% is where you need to look at in terms of wealth
Most.people with a house in better parts of London wd find themselves in.top 1%.
@@advocate1563 and why don't you want to look at them? It sounds like you're saying they're just normal people but, by definition, they are extremely unusual and in the wealthiest subset.
It's much harder to tax the very wealthy more than once (unless you also have an exit tax) and it clearly encourages entrepreneurs to set up their businesses outside the UK which is terrible for the UK
@@phueal The OP doesn't specifically mention land and the only reason that the wealthy currently own so much land is because of inheritance tax rules. If you change those you might get a one off windfall but, longer term it wouldn't help as the wealthy wouldn't invest in land anymore.
@@SmileyEmoji42 oh sorry! I actually thought this was a different thread. I’m going to delete my former message because it is nonsensical now.
I don’t have a particular response to your challenge about taxing the very wealthy. I support a Land Value Tax (what I thought this thread was about at a glance!), which would hit them and which they could take out of the country, but otherwise I was simply saying it’s reasonable to examine ways of taxing the top 1%, not just the top 0.1%, because the top 1% are still very wealthy people.
At the end its '75% of all the wealth is in property and pensions anyway' - should have spent the whole episode talking about that then! Im sure itll be in another episode somewhere.. esp. interested in if/how tax system creates distortions in housing market, aside from obviously stamp duty.
So a land tax is needed as well as pension reform?
I’ve always been vaguely confused by the logic of inheritance tax. The panel seemed to take it as a given this should be higher/more etc…
Can someone who supports it explain why people should be taxed on all the wealth they’ve worked for their entire life because they’ve died. It doesn’t cost the government a penny when someone dies, so what and why are they taxing it - can someone explain the logic of the position?
Will the UK tax it's way to prosperity or continue its decent into neo feudalism?
Surely people would choose to delay death?
But the dividend tax is already subject to corporation tax.
The 39.35% you mention vs 45%. That's 39.35% on already taxed at 19% gross profit.
So a 51% tax rate. Of 100 gross profit the human gets 49, taxman 51.
You either
a) don't know this as not at all knowledgeable
b) do know this, but assume audience is dumb and you have a biased political agenda.
In this case it is clearly b.
If you want dividend tax equal to that on income. Then need zero corporation tax (or full tax relief on dividends).
Not dissimilar to.... the case when Labour came in. So same as they mentioned on capital gains tax. True also for the tax relief issue, Brown's "raid on pension funds".
It's almost. Almost. Like 80s under Thatcher = financially literate. Minute Labour come in = Envy = looks good but shock of unintended consequences which actually fully pre known by the financially literate
@danielwebb8402 you had me until you imply the Tories are more financially literate. Not the last 4 at thr very least and none wuite as good as Blair for even longer.
@@danielwebb8402 and you forgot about NI. Small but matters.
The dividend tax is not subject to corporation tax any more than salaries are subject to corporation tax. Yes, the corporation has had to pay tax on its profits, before paying out dividends; and it has had to pay tax on its profits before paying out salaries. They are completely different taxes.
Surely, the main argument for a lower rate of capital gains tax vs income is that a) the capital invested was post income tax in most cases and b) the capital was at risk. This is also why carried interest should absolutely be taxed as income because it required no capital to invest and is not at risk.
This. They never mention that a dividend is paid out from income that has presumably paid corporation tax at 25% vs a salary which reduces company tax
My savings are invested post income too. The "only tax once" idea seems superficially right but it really isn't - It would massively advantage the rich who have more income to invest.
Again more from this so called 'BBC Independent Tax specialist' Dan Neidle.. actually he is a Labour party member....not very 'independent' is he ?
Inependent Tax specialist does not mean having no political affiliation. It means that you pay for his advice and he doesn't have a financial interest in what that advice is. (That's not my opinion, that's is actually what the term legally means).
So you save from your income (Taxed and NI already taken). Invest that money. it grows and your taxed on that growth. so taxed twice. now your saying raise the 2nd tax. blimey
All money is taxed twice (in fact much more than twice). Your company earned some money - they pay corporation tax. They use some of that money to pay you - they pay NI, you pay income tax. You use some of that money to buy a nice pair of (adult) trousers - you pay VAT. Your trousers go up in value 10,000% and so you sell them - you pay capital gains tax. And so on. Money is taxed again and again when it changes hands, and sometimes when it's not changing hands. I don't know where you got the impression that money would be taxed once and that's it.
@@phueal I know money is taxed multiple times so I agree. I was making the point that the speakers where stating cgt should be higher as income tax is higher. Ie to match. Justification being those earning investment income are paying less than those earning wages. So point being they are the same. My point is they are not the same. You paid income tax and NI before you made investments that then are taxed if there are gains. Cgt. So not a fair justication at all.
@@philipwood123 it’s a fair criticism; their justification was for situations where CGT is being used as a way of paying yourself, like the fund managers example they gave. But it’s true that that rationale is situational.
Problem is a lot of money is increasingly going into non-productive assets eg. Buying property and inflating prices. Taxing wealth has the potential to reduce asset inflation that has negative consequences on society (eg. property value rises exceeding wage growth) and reinvest it instead in generating actual economic activity, such as in healthcare that provides multiple benefits.
@@tbatallen so people can't better their situations over the decades? Better keep everyone poor and that will drive Economic activity will it? Think not. Property development creates a tonne of economic activity. Trades, agents, solicitors etc.