Osborne discovers that the rich avoid paying tax

[handsomefortune]

estate agents are a bit cocky there surely? as the garage doesn't come with security ....and has now been 'advertised' in a national newspaper.... perhaps they'll raise the doors to find it stuffed wall to wall with crims awaiting the arrival of the lamborghini, and bentley!

The American who quit money to live in a cave -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17762033

i just knew studying 'stig of the dump' would come in useful at some point lat!

[ahinton]

estate agents are a bit cocky there surely?

Goes with the territory, innit?

as the garage doesn't come with security

Well, it's probably more correct to say that it is not actually advertised as coming with security

perhaps they'll raise the doors to find it stuffed wall to wall with crims awaiting the arrival of the lamborghini, and bentley!

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that estate agents and the vendors whom they represent from time to time encounter squatters and I doubt that it would be the last...

[amateur51]

Different country, different message and a rather unusual one at that from author Stephen King ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/01/stephen-king-tax-the-rich

[ahinton]

Different country, different message and a rather unusual one at that from author Stephen King ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...g-tax-the-rich

All very well - and he's not the first well off American with a substantial public profile to exhibit such an attitude - but consider this:

Some of America's rich do donate part of their tax savings, King acknowledged; he himself gives $4m "to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organisations that underwrite the arts". But, calling himself only "'baby rich' compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills", the novelist says this "doesn't go far enough [because] charity from the rich can't fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny".
The logic of this escapes me; if those charitable donations indeed do not go far enough to achieve goals such as those that he mentions here, how could those goals be achieved were those same amounts paid to the government in taxes instead of in charitable donations?

One problem that many of those who, irrespective of their income and wealth levels, support the idea that rich people should be taxed more highly is that government entitlement to charge such additional taxes does not come with a guarantee that the increased income will be spent wisely or efficiently or indeed even in ways that the majority of taxpayers might consider to be broadly beneficial socially; another problem with those who think that the rich should be taxed mercilessly is that, were that to occur globally, there would soon be no rich left to tax in that way (other than those who managed to avoid or evade some of those additional taxes.

[aeolium]

The logic of this escapes me; if those charitable donations indeed do not go far enough to achieve goals such as those that he mentions here, how could those goals be achieved were those same amounts paid to the government in taxes instead of in charitable donations?

Perhaps because the amount of charitable donations provided by the American rich does not come close to equalling the amount that would be due from them under a more progressive tax regime and one that clamped down hard on tax avoidance.

One problem that many of those who, irrespective of their income and wealth levels, support the idea that rich people should be taxed more highly is that government entitlement to charge such additional taxes does not come with a guarantee that the increased income will be spent wisely or efficiently or indeed even in ways that the majority of taxpayers might consider to be broadly beneficial socially; another problem with those who think that the rich should be taxed mercilessly is that, were that to occur globally, there would soon be no rich left to tax in that way (other than those who managed to avoid or evade some of those additional taxes.

While it is true that a proportion of taxes will invariably be wasted either through inefficiency or through bad priorities, it still seems to be the case that societies which are more equal are generally better according to a wide range of criteria (see for instance the Equality Trust). And they are generally more equal by having more redistributive taxation regimes. I find it extremely strange that anyone could be arguing against the rich being harshly taxed when the statistics show that taxation rates for the rich have been reduced significantly since the 1970s and the income levels of the superrich especially have risen exponentially during that time.

If you are earning more than a million a year, why on earth would you complain about being taxed at 50% or even 60% - you are still fantastically wealthy by the standards of most people alive and indeed most people who have ever lived?

[ahinton]

Perhaps because the amount of charitable donations provided by the American rich does not come close to equalling the amount that would be due from them under a more progressive tax regime and one that clamped down hard on tax avoidance.

I don't know what you mean by "progressive", but if someone pays, say, 40% of his/her income in taxes (forget about taxes other than income tax for the time being) and gives a further 20% to charities, how would matters improve if 60% were taken in taxes and none in charitable donation?

Tax avoidance, as we have seen, is a very large subject and there will always be tax avoidance within the law under any workable tax régime, including personal and other tax allowances and reliefs of all kinds; any tax avoidance that is within the law cannot be "clamped down hard on" with out a change in the law that turns such avoidance into evasion.

While it is true that a proportion of taxes will invariably be wasted either through inefficiency or through bad priorities, it still seems to be the case that societies which are more equal are generally better according to a wide range of criteria (see for instance the Equality Trust). And they are generally more equal by having more redistributive taxation regimes. I find it extremely strange that anyone could be arguing against the rich being harshly taxed when the statistics show that taxation rates for the rich have been reduced significantly since the 1970s and the income levels of the superrich especially have risen exponentially during that time.

You can have a relatively just and "equal" tax régime without charging so much to the very rich as to encourage them to go elsewhere and avoid it; again, if the rich are taxed sufficiently highly, they'll have either to leave the régime, find ways to avoid at least some of the tax increase or up their incomes to cover it (and I mean the income rich here). Some taxation rates in the past have been absurdly and immorally high; any income tax rate must allow the taxpayer to be able to fund it out of income and not from other sources that he/she might not in any case have.

If you are earning more than a million a year, why on earth would you complain about being taxed at 50% or even 60% - you are still fantastically wealthy by the standards of most people alive and indeed most people who have ever lived?

Well, you wouldn't be taxed on all of your income at those high rates - no one, however income rich, is taxed at the same flat rate on total income - but no, I agree, a 50% maximum rate might not cause undue complaints from income millionaires.

[Serial_Apologist]

One problem that many of those who, irrespective of their income and wealth levels, support the idea that rich people should be taxed more highly is that government entitlement to charge such additional taxes does not come with a guarantee that the increased income will be spent wisely or efficiently or indeed even in ways that the majority of taxpayers might consider to be broadly beneficial socially;

Nor for that matter does not taxing the rich more highly, but instead leaving it to the high-earned to decide for their own reasons whether or not to be philanthropic, supportive of charities and so on; and even then, there's no more guarantee that such noblesse oblige would result in equitable trickle-down of the sort in which you implicitly prefer to place your faith, either.

another problem with those who think that the rich should be taxed mercilessly is that, were that to occur globally, there would soon be no rich left to tax in that way (other than those who managed to avoid or evade some of those additional taxes.

Without the presence of the rich offering themselves as role models for our wasteful, greedy, profligate, image-obsessed culture in our midst, society would be a lot happier, and more inclusive, methinks.

[John Skelton]

You can have a relatively just and "equal" tax régime without charging so much to the very rich as to encourage them to go elsewhere and avoid it; again, if the rich are taxed sufficiently highly, they'll have either to leave the régime, find ways to avoid at least some of the tax increase or up their incomes to cover it (and I mean the income rich here). Some taxation rates in the past have been absurdly and immorally high; any income tax rate must allow the taxpayer to be able to fund it out of income and not from otgher sources that he/she might not in any case have.

Or you can have a relatively just and "equal" income régime, reversing the vast redistribution of income from the poor to the rich (coupled with a decrease in rates of high income taxation) which has occurred over the past 30 or so years: a redistribution augmenting existing inequalities, fueling the problem of credit to 'compensate' for ordinary income suppression ('wage restraint'), and rather undermining attempts to present the rich as cash cows for the feckless other to milk.

Put another way: more people would earn more and pay more tax (and would be left with more money at the end of the process); rich people would earn less and pay less tax (and would be left with less money at the end of the process). If it's wrong or inexpedient to tax the rich more then something needs to be done in some other way to at first claw back the redistribution poor to rich of the past three decades. Would that be OK?

[Serial_Apologist]

Or you can have a relatively just and "equal" income régime, reversing the vast redistribution of income from the poor to the rich (coupled with a decrease in rates of high income taxation) which has occurred over the past 30 or so years: a redistribution augmenting existing inequalities, fueling the problem of credit to 'compensate' for ordinary income suppression ('wage restraint'), and rather undermining attempts to present the rich as cash cows for the feckless other to milk.

Put another way: more people would earn more and pay more tax (and would be left with more money at the end of the process); rich people would earn less and pay less tax (and would be left with less money at the end of the process). If it's wrong or inexpedient to tax the rich more then something needs to be done in some other way to at first claw back the redistribution poor to rich of the past three decades. Would that be OK?

[ahinton]

Nor for that matter does not taxing the rich more highly, but instead leaving it to the high-earned to decide for their own reasons whether or not to be philanthropic, supportive of charities and so on; and even then, there's no more guarantee that such noblesse oblige would result in equitable trickle-down of the sort in which you implicitly prefer to place your faith, either.

I did not seek to suggest that any of this would necesarily be the case any more than one could trust any government to make wise use of the monies with which its taxpaying shareholders fund it; there are no guarantees of greater good whichever way it's done, I think.

Without the presence of the rich offering themselves as role models for our wasteful, greedy, profligate, image-obsessed culture in our midst, society would be a lot happier, and more inclusive, methinks.

But they don't all do this and even the examples of those who do seem to do it or are portrayed as doing it are probably at least viewed as such because certain third parties (not least certain sectors of the media) encourage less well off people to think that they do and that this is what one should expect them to do. No rich person offers himself/herself to me as such a rôle model and I'm quite sure that I'm not alone in this; whilst I do agree that the art of tax avoidance as a whole (including the government sponsored kind) does need to be looked at carefully, I really do not, broadly speaking, care how much money someone else makes and it's really none of my business how much tax they're charged on it or how much tax they pay; after all, those who receive large amounts in earned income or business profits do so only because others are prepared to pay them as much as they get, so there would seem to be little point in the Treasury trying to tax them to pieces when the "fault" - if indeed there is one - really lies with those who pay the income rich rather than with those income rich themselves. Furthermore, I imagine that there are also far less wealthy people who act - or are perceived to act - as rôle models for that wasteful, greedy, profligate, image-obsessed culture which you mention, just as I imagine that plenty of people help to create, participate in and encourage such a culture of their ownvolitions without the need for rôle models of any kind or income level.

[ahinton]

Or you can have a relatively just and "equal" income régime, reversing the vast redistribution of income from the poor to the rich (coupled with a decrease in rates of high income taxation) which has occurred over the past 30 or so years: a redistribution augmenting existing inequalities, fueling the problem of credit to 'compensate' for ordinary income suppression ('wage restraint'), and rather undermining attempts to present the rich as cash cows for the feckless other to milk.

Put another way: more people would earn more and pay more tax (and would be left with more money at the end of the process); rich people would earn less and pay less tax (and would be left with less money at the end of the process). If it's wrong or inexpedient to tax the rich more then something needs to be done in some other way to at first claw back the redistribution poor to rich of the past three decades. Would that be OK?

You make an interesting point. I'm not, however, personally suggesting that the rich should not be taxed sufficiently, although no two people will ever likely agree on how sufficiently is sufficiently. Where I do have a problem with your suggestion is not in what I imagine you would like it to achieve but in this very "redistributive" principle, to the extent that I do not believe that the operaton of any tax régime can truly be regarded as "redistributive" in any fundamental and meaningful sense.

Some people will always claim, regardless of prevailing tax rates, that the rich are not taxed sufficiently (or do not pay as much tax as they should), regardless of how much they're taxed (or how much tax they pay). Some of the past abhorrently high rates of income tax, for example, were so punitive that there could be no guarantee that liabilities for it could be met wholly from the income that was being taxed at those rates; that cannot be justified and we're well rid of it.

It might be an uncomfortable fact that some people have very high taxable incomes and comparatively few readily realisable cash assets, just as some others have vast non-readily realisable assets but relatively small taxable incomes; these two situations might effectively appear as though a kind of "inequality" among the comparatively rich, but it's hard to see how any tax régime could do much about it.

Getting rid of "National Insurance" and increasing income tax accordingly would at least have a marginally redistributive effect in that employers would be able to afford to take on more taxpaying employees, thereby shifting some part of that tax burden from taxing jobs to taxing more people who actually do them; as I've mentioned previously, the simplification process would also slash tax collection costs, to the benefit of all taxpayers from poorest to richest.

No, I'm far more exercised about how much tax poor taxpayers pay than I am about how much rich ones should pay - and, let's face it, there are an awful lot more of the former than there are of the latter!

Finally (and with the specific thread topic in mind), I wonder if Little Mr Osborne has yet discovered who the rich are and what assets values and/or income levels they require in order to qualify them as such?

[Beef Oven]

Different country, different message and a rather unusual one at that from author Stephen King ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/01/stephen-king-tax-the-rich

Stephen King and others like him do go in for this self-flagellation. There is nothing benevolent in it, it is a self-centred act. It's all well and good for him to want to take a large portion of taxation up the gary, but the rest of us are with the lighter-fluid and matches school of thought.

[MrGongGong]

but the rest of us are with the lighter-fluid and matches school of thought.

I"m more of a drag man myself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_1WhMo8Ke0&feature=related

(that could be taken a variety of ways ........... on reflection )

[Beef Oven]

I"m more of a drag man myself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_1WhMo8Ke0&feature=related

(that could be taken a variety of ways ........... on reflection )

Great Vid GG. You must tell me, which brand of espresso is it that you take?

[John Skelton]

Where I do have a problem with your suggestion is not in what I imagine you would like it to achieve but in this very "redistributive" principle, to the extent that I do not believe that the operaton of any tax régime can truly be regarded as "redistributive" in any fundamental and meaningful sense.

You mean in order to reverse the redistribution of income from poor to rich begun in the late 1970s it will be necessary to respond in kind - dispense with taxation - and go for appropriation? Fine by me .