Whaaattt?

Unfortunately, @ViewAhead, the majority of the wealthy will do all they can to hang on to their wealth. Not many of them have the vision to see that making things better for everyone makes all levels of society happier and more secure.

I don't want to go back to the days of George Harrison's Taxman song with 95% tax on high earners but 5 or 10% on everything they own would go a long way to improve health services, education and housing for all.

Must admit I have great difficulty fathoming Starmer. Insubstantial is putting it kindly. At least the Lib Dem leader is fun and relatable.

 

Trump has now decided to attack the film industry, with the probable result of making everywhere except the USA great!
It reminds me of a rather sweet story I read years ago. A film company were filming a street scene in a Canadian town, standing in for New York. For authenticity, the crew had ‘dressed’ the scene with litter and other rubbish (!) and gone home for the night. When they arrived on set on the next day to start filming, the place was pristine! Evidently, passing Canadians had thought ‘tut tut’ and disposed of the rubbish into nearby litter bins.

 

@ViewAhead That's why I used 'claimed' in the comment. Just like every political party claims to have all the answer when in Opposition, but quickly discovers it isn't that simple when actually in power!
A fair tax systems seems a simple proposition but isn't without its problems in implementation. Unless every country has the same system, companies and individuals will always seek ways to hang on to more of their money. That would probably entail registering companies in tax havens, which results in less tax being paid. At a simple level, contributing to a pension plan is a way to reduce tax, as are ISAs. Would those be stopped?
For some years I worked in IT for a subsidiary of a major bank. The sole purpose of the subsidiary was to reduce the amount of tax a company would pay, using entirely legal means. There were regular meetings between the financial wizards in the bank and HMRC to ensure that any plans were entirely legal. One of the main ways of reducing costs and tax burden on companies was for those companies to lease the buildings and machinery from the bank subsidiary. That meant the company had more free cash to invest. Was that a bad thing?
I'm not looking for anybody to answer those questions, simply trying to indicate that any system will find it very difficult to be 'fair to everybody', although that shouldn't stop people trying.

 

I take your points, @KT53, but I do think the solution is simplicity. Simple systems remove wiggle room.

@Obelix-Vendée, I don't want to see 95% tax either. I would prefer one rate (25%) but on everything, no exemptions. Earned wages, 25%. Shares/dividends, 25%. Inheritance, 25%. Gifts given in your lifetime, 25%. Money taken offshore, 25%. Money already offshore brought back onshore, 25%. Money made from property that is not a person's primary, permanent home, 25%. ISAs and interest on savings, 25%. Royal family, 25%. And so on. It would be better to get 25% reliably than have higher bands but with the wealthy managing to abstain. Rishi Sunak and his ilk would pay a lot more tax under my system.

I would even tax "philanthropic" donations, rather than having these as tax-breaks and nice little earners. If a wealthy person wishes to support some pet cause, fine, but support society (which they likely ripped off by not paying their share of tax in the first place, allowing them to accumulate billions at the expense of others) as well so their "generosity" can be used on things a democratically elected gov was voted in to do.

 

*idly wonders if Labour might invite @Fat Controller to write their next Party Political Broadcast*

 

So if a member of the Royal Family earns money you would tax that at 25%, followed by a further 25% at the end of the tax year for being a member of the Royal Family.
Likewise I sell a property 25% tax, I invest overseas 25% tax, a couple of years later I bring that investment back here and pay a further 25% tax; so the money I sold my second home for has been taxed at 75%.
Or I earn money 25% tax, I invest that overseas a further 25% so my earned income is taxed at 50%.
A persons income from whatever source should be taxed once.
If I earn money I'm taxed on it, I invest it in shares and then the dividends are treated as income and taxed; however when I sell the shares I should be taxed on the profit, if any, not the whole sale price. So the capital gain is taxed, but the original earned money is only taxed once.

So again you would tax income twice once when you get and again when you donate it to charity: really.

 

A bit like when Ken Loach filmed “Threads”, a film about the aftermath of a nuclear bomb being dropped on Sheffield, and he staged in an already derelict area of the city, ready for filming the following day, custom built window frames and doors hanging off their hinges. Come the hour for filming, all the doors and window frames were found to have been “re-used” by the locals, taken home to replace their even grottier doors and window frames. True.

 

The suggested system would tax income at 25%, then tax any money given to family members at 25%, then tax anything left in wills at 25%. The same money taxed 3 times hardly seems fair.
At first reading 25% across the board seems OK, until you look into the detail.
If nothing else, this shows that even a 'simple' system isn't really as simple as it looks.

 

@NigelJ, largely my system would not tax twice. Returning money from offshore would only be taxed if it was already there when the rules changed. Royal income would be taxed at 25%, including inheritance, no exceptions.

The basic rule would be that any money "in" to a person got taxed. If you gave a gift in your lifetime, the receiver is getting it "in" and 25% would be paid in tax (as works with inheritance now, though currently at 40%).

People who have billions and then use this "philanthropically" have generally avoided paying tax along the way. The tax they would have paid would have been used by govs. Instead they are scattering around surplus as they please, and often earning in the process. Once a system of 25% tax had settled in, anyone accumulating a new fortune would have paid tax and then the philanthropic tax could be dropped.

Re property, if you buy a second home for £1 million and sell it for £2 million, my system would tax you 25% on the profit as that is money "in" to you.

My point really is, wherever you set thresholds, keep the rules very simple and loophole-free.

 

Now that's what I call Recycling at it's best It would have been much simpler for the film company to ask the locals if they could further trash their already grotty doors and window frames and then replace them with new after filming completed. A couple of security guards on site may have been a cheaper option.

 

The system would tax anything a person gained, either through work or gifts or whatever. That is no different to the current inheritance tax system. Parents pay tax on their earnings etc. When they die, their children pay tax on what they leave. Currently this is 40%. I think that is unreasonable. Giving 25% seems a better balance to me.

The reason I would tax gifts made during a lifetime more than 7 yrs prior to death would be to prevent swerving of inheritance tax. If I gave my child 50k to buy a flat or pay off loans, that would be money "in" to them, and, therefore, taxed.

 

Inheritance tax already does that though ... and at 40%, not my more generous 25%.

Yes, I would get rid of VAT, etc. Possibly even Corporation Tax. If profits are taxed as part of individual "incomes", companies don't need to be taxed separately.