Is it time to leave the UK?

[richard-john56]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

So here is the question...


Is it time to leave the UK?




We have energy costs spiraling through the roof, most of us haven't had a pay rise in decades, and even if you have had a pay rise, it is often not a pay rise as it is not keeping up with inflation.

People are getting poorer every day. The middle class family man that works hard all week gets no help. They will become the homeless poor people of tomorrow.


Food prices have gone up dramatically.


The NHS is at breaking point.


Our government is in ruins. And currently it is all about the ritch getting ritcher. Any help whatsoever is very narrowly focussed.

Banks have become too greedy. Gone are the days when an ISA was actually a good way of saving money.




Is it time to ditch the UK?

If so, where would you go?




It certainly isnt a good time right now.

Well there are several hundred rubber dinghies stored along the Kent coast line going free perhaps escape to France and beyond. (I witnessed last week at Dungeness 50 migrants come ashore by the RNLI and put on a coach) they must think this country is great.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Which brings us back to the Thread subject - Rhodes left the U.K. aged 17, and spent most of the rest of his life in Southern Africa…

Not by his own choice, he had respiratory issues and was sent there by his father as they thought the climate may be better for him.

But that's a digression.

The quote still stands, by living in a Western Country you are already in a much better situation than most of the rest of the world, that isn't.

and, as Western Countries go, I would argue that the UK is one of the best.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not by his own choice, he had respiratory issues and was sent there by his father as they thought the climate may be better for him.

But that's a digression.

The quote still stands, by living in a Western Country you are already in a much better situation than most of the rest of the world, that isn't.

and, as Western Countries go, I would argue that the UK is one of the best.

I’m sure the climate would be better for everyone looking at their heating bills!

Is that their own choice?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Problem is then defining high net worth. Say you live in a property you bought cheap many years back in an area that has become "desirable" so increased disproportionately in value you may have high worth but you are cash poor why should you pay for that? Or you bought a wreck, worked on it over many years, invested in it (paying tax on all that work), looked after it so again it has high worth?


It seems to be a pretty leftist idea to tax success.

You start with a good argument and then you spoilt with a lazy "pretty leftist idea to tax success" cliché. Being lucky in when & where you buy a house is not "earned success". Do you "earn" a lottery win? Of course not. We bought our house in 1993 and it is now worth nearly 10x the initial amount. Did I "earn" this, of course not.

Anyway, you are setting the bar too low. I would define high net worth at, let's say £3 million in total asset valuation. I would then argue that any high net worth individual should pay the same effective tax rate as you and I i.e. P.A.Y.E tax payers, on the increase of their net worth.

Originally Posted by ianch99

We bought our house in 1933 and it is now worth nearly 10x the initial amount.

You are like 110+ years old

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m sure the climate would be better for everyone looking at their heating bills!

Is that their own choice?

Yes.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

You are like 110+ years old

Yes .. if you measure it in Tory years

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Easy enough to exempt main residences from any ‘wealth tax"…

But the same could apply to any asset, you buy a derelict old car, spend years and money restoring it and if rare enough and done well enough could be worth a fortune. (Replace car with boat, aeroplane, jewellery, art work, the latter especially could be lent to museums for others to enjoy.)


Taxing wealth sounds like a typical leftist mechanism on success. I think the focus maybe should be on ensuring that the very high earners pay the proper tax on income, against that of course is if too draconian they just move elsewhere.


Wonders if we could apply VAT to football transfers, it's a purchase and a luxury, 20% on some of those figures would bring in some money.

Taxing wealth sounds like a typical leftist mechanism on success

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. ...

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”

Jesus sounds a bit of a leftie..

But seriously, you are proposing very rare exceptional occurrences to bolster your argument…

Originally Posted by Hugh

Jesus sounds a bit of a leftie..

But seriously, you are proposing very rare exceptional occurrences to bolster your argument…

His brother James actually … though comparisons between the sons of Mary and Jeremy & Piers Corbyn, while tempting, would be wide of the mark

James had clearly been spending a lot of time with the Old Testament prophets when he penned that letter, but that was no bad thing. Those guys had a very dim view of injustice and social inequality, especially as there were provisions in Jewish law that were supposed to have prevented poverty becoming a generational problem.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Taxing wealth sounds like a typical leftist mechanism on success. I think the focus maybe should be on ensuring that the very high earners pay the proper tax on income, against that of course is if too draconian they just move elsewhere.

The problem is that increasingly people just accumulate huge amounts of wealth and they don't have an easily defined income stream to tax that is proportional to their wealth. An alternative would be brutally high inheritance tax over a certain amount but that wouldn't be popular either.

I also think lower income taxes but higher wealth taxes would incentivise people to earn money rather than hoard it and make it easier for people who are just starting to build wealth to do so. For example, it's probably not fair that someone who has no assets but has just started to earn a high income is taxed at the same rate as someone who is already loaded.

Land is the obvious issue here as well. It isn't 'success' if you were born early enough to get lower prices or if you inherited it.

The main argument against is it's probably really hard to implement.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

An alternative would be brutally high inheritance tax over a certain amount but that wouldn't be popular either.

I think it would be popular, very popular over a certain amount, inheritance tax was never meant for the little people but thanks to stupidly high house prices more people are falling into it, making corporations actually pay some tax would be popular to.

[GrimUpNorth]

And putting even a little bit of effort in to closing the tax gap would help pay a few fuels bills.

£32 Billion would certainly help.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Taxing wealth sounds like a typical leftist mechanism on success. I think the focus maybe should be on ensuring that the very high earners pay the proper tax on income, against that of course is if too draconian they just move elsewhere.

You are missing the obvious point here and that is the high net worth individuals proactively avoid income as you & I would define it. They have a myriad of vehicles to minimise their tax burden. This is why it is the increase of their total net worth that should be taxed at the same rate (or higher) as P.A.Y.E individuals.