'The Super-Rich and us'..BBC 2 tonight...7.00-8.00 pm

[Paul Waine]

She is English and lives in London!!

Would have saved me posting if the S.Times Rich List had mentioned this.

Are we saying that when here husband died and left her all his wealth that she moved from Switzerland and came to live in London?

I don't know her, so I can't say either way.

[Paul Waine]

Right, I basically skipped to page 46 - Conclusions. The conclusions (from the impact of increasing a single tax in 2012) could reasonably be summarised as "There is no evidence either way as to whether tax takes will increase or decrease as a result of this measure". Is that fair?

I did smile at this: the analysis is only based on one year's data

I'm not convinced this qualifies as:

There's buckets of evidence that this is not the case, by the way. It's time for the wealthy to give up on this line of attack. I think when the IMF finally cracked the game was up on this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... mists-ears" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi iibyw, agree 1 year doesn't provide any meaningful data - but what did you expect the HMRC to say?

Guardian - and what did we expect it to say?

Do you have a link to the actual IMF report - this may be interesting to read?

[Paul Waine]

Yep, these are just the sort of practices that need to end: put all your wealth offshore, often in UK sovereign territory, then live in London. Branson lives on UK territory, even when not living on the mainland. It wouldn't bother me one jot if Branson chose Monaco or Switzerland should we clamp down on the BVI. Like you say, he's a tax exile already, so what the eff difference would it make?? (Or is he going to take his West Coast franchise with him - even better.)

How does Momentum plan to tax the overseas income (and assets) of all the non-UK citizens who chose to live in the UK?

Did you look at the Rich List?

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Sidney1st]

With help to buy you can get on the ladder for under 10k for a three bedroom semi detached new build.

Still difficult to save if you can't live at your parents cheaply.

Plus help to buy is that system where you have to pay back the money lent by the state isn't it?
Isn't very helpful because as far as I'm aware it needs to be paid back within X amount of years alongside the mortgage payments.

House prices aren't affordable for the average worker and that's the issue, which no government will deal with.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Just to add a bit of balance to all the above talk of the left-leaning, government funded IMF discrediting the Laffer curve, this is the Cato institute’s take on one of the IMF’s own recent papers:

https://www.cato.org/blog/international ... ffer-curve

The other thing about the Laffer curve is that lows taxes are meant to stimulate creation of new tax paying businesses. It isnt just about direct and indirect taxes. You have to look at the overall tax take and average tax rate of a country.

I sense though that this financial education will be learned the hard way by one leading developed nation. Most are now leaning left because of rising inequality. I also sense that we will be the ones to learn it. Corbyn seems set to get in. To prove the point of the Laffer curve, I am far from wealthy, but what I have I have already positioned accordingly, and he won’t be getting tax he doesn’t deserve out of me.

[Hipper]

I think people are being misled about this stuff.

The UK has a less unequal wealth than most other developed nations.

The bottom 50% in the UK have nearly 10% of the wealth - Germany and the US aren’t far off 1% and France are about 3%.

The top 10% in the UK have about 45% of wealth - Germany is about 60%, France 65% and the US 75%. The UK is overall very wealthy so the % means the same kind of wealth per capita that it does for these other countries, more or less.

As others have pointed out, income tax is paid in fairly large chunks here by the richest, and we have a high minimum wage and personal allowance too. So on both income and wealth terms we look OK.

Saying all that, there are some fairly obvious issues. Stagnating real terms incomes, no interest on savings, QE and low interest rates fuelling an asset boom for the rich, zero hours contracts, austerity in public services. If someone living near us has £1m net wealth that doesn’t affect any of that stuff in terms of the effect on poorer people. There is a lot of evidence that if taxes go up, overall tax revenues go down, targetting the rich is a risky business. We need to address all this stuff, but in context.

Do you have any source for this sort of information please?

[Paul Waine]

It wasn't just the Guardian, it was big news, the death of the Laffer Curve. It was reported everywhere, even The Telegraph:

(I know what you'll do, you'll pick out a few sentences from the report cautioning against marginal tax rates nearing 100%, and say something like "Corbyn will take taxes to 100%, like Venezuela!" - I know your tricks Paul Waine! - but the undeniable thrust of the IMF report is that there is huge scope for increasing tax rates on the rich without harming either growth or total tax revenues. And this is the IMF talking, who up until now were ardent disciples of The Washington Consensus. When the IMF give up on a flawed neoliberal theory, everyone might as well give up on it. The only ones left defending lower tax rates to increase growth are in the Trump administration. (And you, and dsr, and Rowls...))

Good morning, iibyw.

I didn't ask if you could provide any more media reports - I asked if you'd got a link to the IMF Report.

The report is called: "Tackling Inequality" and is published in the IMF's Fiscal Monitor, Oct-2017. Link here:

http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/FM/I ... tober-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe you won't read it - just like you didn't bother to look at the S.Times Rich List - but, well done on quoting all the income/wealth that Corbyn/McDonnell want to tax - even though most of this wealth is owned by non-UK citizens and their income/wealth is earned/held in other countries. (The biggest reason why their "wealth" rose so much between the 2016 report and 2017 is the fall in GBP v other currencies). Good luck with your North Bury constituents when they find out. - There is a family on the list who started their business, in a very small way, in Bury. Can you identify them?

So, IMF, led by a well known French socialist, Ms Lagarde, is writing papers about social policy and wants to tackle inequality - but, again, only in the first world wealthy nations. Let's not get excited that this is a major step forward in our understanding of economics.

Maybe we can reference France, Lagarde's own country: Hollande raised taxes, a number of wealthy/high earners left the country (some came to the UK), Macron is now aiming to reduce the tax burden in France (but, not without resistance from the socialists).

Quoting the Summary:

"Rising inequality and slow economic growth in many countries have focused attention on policies to support inclusive growth. While some inequality is inevitable in a market-based economic system, excessive inequality can erode social cohesion, lead to political polarization, and ultimately lower economic growth. This Fiscal Monitor discusses how fiscal policies can help achieve redistributive objectives. It focuses on three salient policy debates: tax rates at the top of the income distribution, the introduction of a universal basic income, and the role of public spending on education and health."

I'll read the report later, Will you?

[Blackrod]

Both sides want to rich to carry on paying the higher burden of tax and both sides want the rich to pay even more (if possible) and for lower-earners to pay even less (if possible).

There are two possible ways of achieving this:

1. The Dogmatic Socialist Approach as favoured by the Labour Party
You tax the rich more and they pay more - at least the theory goes. The problem with this is that the rich are rich enough to move assets and wealth around. If they feel they are being taxed unfairly they move their wealth, cannot be taxed and there is a shortfall in tax receipts.
When there is a shortfall in tax and the rich have left the country historically the tax burden then falls more heavily on the general population who cannot afford to up sticks and leave the country at a moment's notice.

2. The pragmatic approach as favoured -traditionally- by the Conservative Party
You tax the rich as much as possible without scaring them off. You tax poor people (and middle-earner too) as little as possible to maintain good public services.
This has resulted recently in the creation of 3 million jobs as tax thresholds were raised so that the lowest earners wouldn't have to pay any tax at all. At the same time, tax for the richest has been set very carefully so that they are happy to pay tax rather than leave the country. The net result is the wealthiest are paying the highest share of the tax ever and the poorest are paying the least they ever have.
Long may this approach continue in the name of progressiveness.

Agree

[Blackrod]

Do not often agree with Mohammed but he makes some very valid points on this thread. The quality of life in this country has improved substantially for many people. They can afford things they once would never have been able to afford. There will always be a disparity between rich and poor. The obscenely rich are only a very tiny fraction. People should be encouraged to do well for themselves which in turn stimulates growth and the economy.

[Colburn_Claret]

The problem with mortgages is that people who are paying £500 a month rent are refused £500 a month mortgage. That's stupid and unfair.
There was snippet in the news 3or 4 weeks ago, that the Government were looking in to this and trying to alter it. Wether there is any meat on this bone I don't know.
Zero hour contracts prohibit the worker from receiving a mortgage, even if they've had continuous employment for years, and for that fact alone (although there are many others), zero hours contracts should be abolished.

The main reason why houses are so expensive is because of Maggie (the witch) flogging off council houses, flooding the market with people out to make a quick buck. These slum landlords, even good landlords, all contribute to the high price in housing. They are all rich, but they aren't part of the 1%. They are part of the 99%, like me and you. It's just so too easy, and far too simplistic to blame the problems of today on the so called Super Rich.

[dsr]

Zero hour contracts prohibit the worker from receiving a mortgage, even if they've had continuous employment for years, and for that fact alone (although there are many others), zero hours contracts should be abolished.

It's a bit extreme telling people for whom zero hours contracts are ideal, that they can't have their job because someone else can't get a mortgage. No-one ever suggested that casual labour should be abolished in the past because casual labourers couldn't get jobs - zero hours contracts (used properly) are similar.

[Colburn_Claret]

It's a bit extreme telling people for whom zero hours contracts are ideal, that they can't have their job because someone else can't get a mortgage. No-one ever suggested that casual labour should be abolished in the past because casual labourers couldn't get jobs - zero hours contracts (used properly) are similar.

If people want to work part time, thats fine, but call it what it is.
It's the people working full time, but have zero hours contracts. How can it suit anybody working full time, to be classed as not having a job.

[dsr]

The main reason why houses are so expensive is because of Maggie (the witch) flogging off council houses, flooding the market with people out to make a quick buck. These slum landlords, even good landlords, all contribute to the high price in housing. They are all rich, but they aren't part of the 1%. They are part of the 99%, like me and you. It's just so too easy, and far too simplistic to blame the problems of today on the so called Super Rich.

I'm not sure that's true, either. I reckon the main reason why house prices are high is because there is a shortage of the houses people want to live in. If a million houses owned by private landlords were put back into council possession, it would just mean the million tenants had changed landlords. It wouldn't mean there were more homes available.

People buying second homes or leaving houses unoccupied for other reasons, that's a different matter. But essentially, if there were suddenly 10 million fewer people or 5 million extrra homes (I'm not advocated ether scenario!) prices would fall.

[dsr]

If people want to work part time, thats fine, but call it what it is.
It's the people working full time, but have zero hours contracts. How can it suit anybody working full time, to be classed as not having a job.

That is indeed what it is. But there should be better ways of dealing with the abuses of zero-hours contracts without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Colburn_Claret]

I'm not sure that's true, either. I reckon the main reason why house prices are high is because there is a shortage of the houses people want to live in. If a million houses owned by private landlords were put back into council possession, it would just mean the million tenants had changed landlords. It wouldn't mean there were more homes available.

People buying second homes or leaving houses unoccupied for other reasons, that's a different matter. But essentially, if there were suddenly 10 million fewer people or 5 million extrra homes (I'm not advocated ether scenario!) prices would fall.

Not trying to be flippant, but thats like saying flooding the market with footballers will bring the price of players down. It's private landlords who dictate the rents, and house prices are based on the cost of rents.
If the Government brought in a law (all hypothetical) that rents were capped at £200 a month, the demand for new houses would plummet, because everyone would be more than happy to rent. The knock on effect would be house prices would have to drop in order for people to get a bite.
My daughter is a Social Worker, she had to move to Maidenhead after she qualified as Oop North they wanted experience. She rented a room in a house for £500 a month. She's back home now and just bought a 4 bedroom new build house with her boyfriend, and she pays about the same for her mortgage than she was paying rent.
Private landlords are a scourge, they might not mean to be, they might be nice people just trying to make money, but whether they like it or not, they are the cause of the problems in the housing market.

[Sidney1st]

They aren't building houses quick enough and some of that is done on purpose to keep prices inflated.
What's the point in fulfilling the demand in a short space of time if it's going to reduce the price you can sell it for?
Housing companies aren't daft, they sit on large chunks of land until THEY want to build the houses, not when the demand needs it.

[Hipper]

'It's private landlords who dictate the rents, and house prices are based on the cost of rents.
If the Government brought in a law (all hypothetical) that rents were capped at £200 a month, the demand for new houses would plummet, because everyone would be more than happy to rent. The knock on effect would be house prices would have to drop in order for people to get a bite.'

But landlords who charge too high a rent won't get it and their property will be empty.

New rentals where I live have fallen slightly for that very reason.

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

Not trying to be flippant, but thats like saying flooding the market with footballers will bring the price of players down. It's private landlords who dictate the rents, and house prices are based on the cost of rents.
If the Government brought in a law (all hypothetical) that rents were capped at £200 a month, the demand for new houses would plummet, because everyone would be more than happy to rent. The knock on effect would be house prices would have to drop in order for people to get a bite.
My daughter is a Social Worker, she had to move to Maidenhead after she qualified as Oop North they wanted experience. She rented a room in a house for £500 a month. She's back home now and just bought a 4 bedroom new build house with her boyfriend, and she pays about the same for her mortgage than she was paying rent.
Private landlords are a scourge, they might not mean to be, they might be nice people just trying to make money, but whether they like it or not, they are the cause of the problems in the housing market.

Hi Colburn, it is all about the supply and demand for houses - whether we buy them to live in ourselves or we rent them, either from the state (council/housing assocs) or private landlords. Why do you think house prices (both to buy and to rent) in London/S.East are so much higher than house prices the North? It's all because there are more jobs in London etc, so more people want to/need to live there - and, not enough houses are being built. (The people who buy a second home and leave it empty don't help the supply/demand balance, either).

Rent controls have been tried in this country before - they end up with fewer houses to rent, and don't solve the problem that there are more people looking for somewhere to live than there are houses for them to buy - especially in the areas the want to live/can get jobs.

The ability to move house easily/cheaply is also important for the growth of the economy: if I'm offered a job in a new area and have to move home to take that job renting can be relatively easy (provided there are decent places to rent), but I should have to pay an enormous amount in tax to the government - so, instead many would chose not to move. The new stamp duty scales - yes, it's properties above £1 million, but that doesn't get you much in London - are putting many people off moving, and encouraging them, if they require extra space, to extend - which continues to put home ownership (and rental) out of reach of others lower down the ladder. It's just another example of the mess George Osborne has made of our tax system (other governments are available - and most on offer will equally make a mess....).

[Paul Waine]

Good morning Paul Waine, and a jolly pleasant morning it is, too.

(It's a strange day when the IMF of all people are being painted as a socialist madhouse.)

We know that the Labour party doesn't like the IMF - had to go "cap in hand" to them to be rescued from the economic difficulties that they'd got the country in. Required the Labour Government to revere their "growth harming" tax policies, amongst other things.

What party was Christine Lagarde a of when she was in the French government? Do you think that the IMF writing about "inequality" has got anything to do with the IMF's economic role - or do you think it is Ms Lagarde playing at French politics - and aiming to position herself for the next role she wants: President of France?

If you read the IMF paper you will see that it says a return to Labour's 98% tax rates would be harmful - as are ridiculously high marginal tax rates in other countries.

Corbyn/McDonnell better get their calculators out again - their plans are unaffordable and will be very harmful for the UK economy - and are impossible to achieve with the "only the top 5% will pay more."

[If it be your will]

.

[KateR]

historically, the wealthy get wealthier decade upon decade simply because they have more to invest/buy/spend and this is usually handed down to family members, it has always been the case and will continue to be the case developed countries and this is taking away any corrupt influences. What should be the measure is "are you better off than your grandparents time on time, will you be better off when your parents pass and a house becomes yours or a share of it". I think the vast majority would have to say yes to this question and your children will have the same yes in due time. There are obviously blips in this as some children do not do as well and sometimes in drastic measures will suffer more, longevity of parents and also failure to get as good a job as parents can be reasons but again in the majority it will hold true.

My son is on a job just below the 40hr week threshold such that the company he works for do not have to pay his medical insurance, at this time we as parent are paying his medical insurance, this is US based and while hopefully he never needs it the risk not to have it is to great should he need it for an emergency. However a time will come when he get's a share of what we have and he will be wealthy in a way.

When people work hard for what they get and are in the top 1% of income, which as already stated is not all that high, they pay there taxes and do contribute and it does trickle down.

The gap will get wider, it's a fact of life and will continue to be unless the Trot's like JC get in, then I will believe that some wealth and people will leave the UK and that in general is not going to be good for the country as a whole, certain things will stop people from being attracted to put money in to the UK even those that don't live here, stamp duty etc have already caused that to some effect. Trying to take from the super rich who have already accumulated wealth can not be right either, there has to be a fine line that continues to keep the super rich here and attract others to invest in the UK, taxing them is not a solution.

[dsr]

Not trying to be flippant, but thats like saying flooding the market with footballers will bring the price of players down. It's private landlords who dictate the rents, and house prices are based on the cost of rents.

Flooding the market with footballers would indeed bring prices down. The reason Kane is worth £100m+ is because there aren't many players who can do what he does. If there were loads of Kanes, they wouldn't be worth so much. (Not an exact analogy, of course, because in housing the difference between the best and the second-best has far less impact on the price. The best footballers cost two or three times the price of the second best; in housing, it's more like 5% extra.)

Rents are actually dictated by supply and demand - if it was just landlords who dictated the rents, they'd be renting room for £500 up here as well as in Maidenhead. It's because the housing shortage in Maidenhead is worse than up here, that's why your daughter's rent was so high.

[Goalposts]

But who are the rich? We can all agree that everyone on the Sunday Times Rich List is rich. All 1,000 have assets worth in excess of £100m; 134 are billionaires. If they are the rich then I suspect you are not rich. They make up 0.00002 per cent of the UK population. The same sorts of comparisons hold in most developed countries.

Given demographic and other pressures, the need for tax revenue is not going to go away, irrespective of whether we follow Labour’s expansionist path. And who could object to getting a bit more money off billionaires? Sadly, though, there aren’t enough of them to generate serious revenue. More importantly, tax authorities tend to find it rather hard to get their hands on the wealth of the super-rich.

What about the top 1 per cent then? They must be rich — richer than the other 99 per cent for sure. To be in the top 1 per cent of households for wealth in the UK you need about £3m, including the value of your house and any private pension. Plenty of middle-aged homeowners in London and the South East with a good pension qualify as top 1 per cent.To be in the top 5 per cent — wealthier than 95 per cent of your compatriots — you need total assets worth about £1.5m. If half is tied up in a house there would be enough, at age 65, to secure an index-linked pension of perhaps £25,000 a year.

What about income then? Sometimes by the rich we mean those with high levels of assets, sometimes we mean those with high incomes.

The top 1 per cent of income taxpayers — and don’t forget 40 per cent of the population don’t have incomes high enough to pay income tax — have pre-tax incomes in excess of £160,000 a year. That sounds good. But it’s still £340,000 below the top 0.1 per cent. And there’s one clue as to why many of those who — on any objective measure of their position in the income distribution — are rich but don’t feel rich. The higher you get up the distribution, the further you are behind those just above you in the distribution.

Think about the person at the 95th centile among income taxpayers — that is someone with income higher than 95 per cent of all taxpayers. They will have a gross income just above £70,000 a year. That is £50,000 more than the median income taxpayer. However, it is also £90,000 less than someone at the 99th percentile. So someone earning £70,000 might be forgiven for feeling more similar to the median taxpayer, who is 13.7m people (45 percentiles) below them in the distribution, than to the taxpayer just 1.2m people (4 percentiles) above them.

For many, richness will depend on the combination of assets and income. If I happen to own a house outright, income of £70,000 makes me much richer than if I am paying rent. It also makes a difference whether that £70,000 is supporting just one person, or also a spouse and a couple of children.

Official figures do correct for family composition, so a single childless person needs a net income of £33,000 to put them in the top 10 per cent or £86,000 to make the top 1 per cent. A couple with two children, on the other hand, needs nearly £70,000 or £180,000 respectively to qualify for the same categories.

On one or other of these definitions quite a lot of us will be rich at some point in our lives. We will have more wealth as we get older. Our incomes, we hope, will rise over time. Children will come and go. Only a few individuals are rich throughout their lives. But the tax system is too blunt an instrument to recognise that. A 25-year-old earning £80,000 a year, or a 65-year-old with pension income at that level, are hugely richer than a 45-year-old whose salary peaked at £80,000, and who has rent to pay and children to provide for.

However we define the rich, we know one thing: they pay an awful lot of tax. The richest 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over a quarter of all income tax; the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent of the total. Whatever we think of the rich, we are, perhaps to an uncomfortable extent, dependent upon them. We would like to get a bit more money from them to fund the public services we want, but we should not pretend they are the only ones who will need to pay more if we are to increase spending on health, education and infrastructure.

I’m all in favour of taxing the rich. Just so long as they are richer than I am, and just so long as we keep those revenues coming in

[Colburn_Claret]

'It's private landlords who dictate the rents, and house prices are based on the cost of rents.
If the Government brought in a law (all hypothetical) that rents were capped at £200 a month, the demand for new houses would plummet, because everyone would be more than happy to rent. The knock on effect would be house prices would have to drop in order for people to get a bite.'

But landlords who charge too high a rent won't get it and their property will be empty.

New rentals where I live have fallen slightly for that very reason.

But they do Hipper, because so many of the people living in rented accommodation are on benefits. The tenants don't pick up the tab, the social does. Another problem with the system.

[Goalposts]

The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom nine million, according to official Government statistics.

The figures show that the very highest earners - amounting to just under 3,000 people with a declared income above £2.7 million - will contribute 4.2 per cent of the total Government revenue from income tax in the current financial year. By contrast, Britain’s nine million poorest paid workers contribute less than four per cent of the total income tax receipt.

In all, 29.9 million people pay income tax in the UK. According to the new figures released by HM revenue & Customs (HMRC), almost one-third of income tax payers contribute less to the Exchequer than the top 3,000 earners - equivalent to 0.01 per cent of the total. The figures were disclosed in a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the journalist Fraser Nelson as part of his investigation into growing wealth inequality in Britain. His findings will be broadcast in Channel 4’s investigations programme Dispatches, entitled How The Rich Get Richer,

Mr Nelson, editor of The Spectator magazine, said yesterday that the new figures ‘blow apart’ Ed Miliband’s claim last week that Britain had become a ‘zero zero’ country where the richest pay zero tax and the poorest work on ‘zero hours’ contracts. “In the last tax year, the richest were shouldering a greater share of the burden than any time in history,” said Mr Nelson. “And this was achieved after the top rate of income tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in April 2013.

“It is now harder than ever for Ed Miliband to justify bringing back the 50p tax. Indeed, now that the richest pay such a great share of income tax, the British government is financially reliant on a small number of highly mobile super-taxpayers.” Working with the Centre for Social Justice, a think tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith, the Dispatches programme analysed a range of measures of poverty and social deprivation. They discovered that the gulf between rich and poor has widened over the past two decades - a damning indictment, they claim, of a welfare culture that has failed to encourage social mobility.

Mr Nelson says the results also showed evidence that the comprehensive state school system has continued to let down the poorest citizens while a complex system of tax credits introduced by the last Labour government has also failed to narrow the rich/poor divide. It also suggest almost five years of Conservative-led Coalition government had failed to redress the imbalance.

The programme also disclosed:
* the poorest people are 13 times more likely to be victims of violent crime
* the poorest households are three times more likely to be fatherless than the richest
* children attending state schools in the most deprived areas are three times more likely to fail to get five A to C grades at GCSE than those in the wealthiest neighbourhoods
* life expectancy for the poorest one million Britons is 70 compared to 88 for the wealthiest one million

The new income tax figures appear to dispel the claim that Britain’s richest people are avoiding paying tax. The HMRC already publishes statistics showing that the top ten per cent of earners pay more than 55 per cent of the total income tax. But the latest figures released through the FoI request cast light on the even greater tax burden shouldered by the super-rich. It shows that for the top 0.1 per cent of earners - about 30,000 people with a minimum declared income of £670,000 - they may earn five per cent of the total income but pay 11.3 per cent of all income tax.

The Institute of Economic Affairs calculated that the wealthiest 30,000 income tax payers contribute about £18.8 billion in income tax - equivalent to the entire budget of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined. For the richest 0.01 per cent, they earn 1.9 per cent of total income but pay 4.2 per cent of total income tax.

Ryan Bourne, head of public policy at the Institute for Economic Affairs, said: “These figures make a mockery of the idea of a ‘zero-zero’ economy – where high earners don’t pay their way. In fact, they show just how dependent we are on a small number of high-earning taxpayers for a large chunk of revenue.”

Steve Baker, a Conservative member of the Treasury Select Committee, said: “It’s an absolute nonsense [for Ed Miliband] to suggest the 0.1 per cent don’t pay any tax, because they evidently do.”

A Treasury source said: “The rich pay more under this Government than under Labour. The people who pay zero tax are the millions of low earners who have been taken out of paying income tax altogether due to George Osborne increasing the tax free personal allowance.”

[Paul Waine]

But who are the rich? We can all agree that everyone on the Sunday Times Rich List is rich. All 1,000 have assets worth in excess of £100m; 134 are billionaires. If they are the rich then I suspect you are not rich. They make up 0.00002 per cent of the UK population. The same sorts of comparisons hold in most developed countries.

However we define the rich, we know one thing: they pay an awful lot of tax. The richest 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over a quarter of all income tax; the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent of the total. Whatever we think of the rich, we are, perhaps to an uncomfortable extent, dependent upon them. We would like to get a bit more money from them to fund the public services we want, but we should not pretend they are the only ones who will need to pay more if we are to increase spending on health, education and infrastructure.

I’m all in favour of taxing the rich. Just so long as they are richer than I am, and just so long as we keep those revenues coming in

Great post, Goalposts - "back of the net" with all the stats (if you don't mind my little play on your username).

Just a little "quibble" - some on the ST Rich List 1,000 aren't UK citizens, don't live in the UK and don't vote in the UK - so the "0.00002 per cent of the UK population" may be an overstatement - of course, this doesn't matter. Your message is clear and your conclusion is unarguable.

[Goalposts]

Great post, Goalposts - "back of the net" with all the stats (if you don't mind my little play on your username).

Just a little "quibble" - some on the ST Rich List 1,000 aren't UK citizens, don't live in the UK and don't vote in the UK - so the "0.00002 per cent of the UK population" may be an overstatement - of course, this doesn't matter. Your message is clear and your conclusion is unarguable.

quite correct Paul, hence the secondary post

[JohnMcGreal]

2. The pragmatic approach as favoured -traditionally- by the Conservative Party
You tax the rich as much as possible without scaring them off.

Yes, it's a very delicate balance and we shouldn't do anything rash or hasty which might scare wealth and investment away from this country..........

[Inchy]

historically, the wealthy get wealthier decade upon decade simply because they have more to invest/buy/spend and this is usually handed down to family members, it has always been the case and will continue to be the case developed countries and this is taking away any corrupt influences. What should be the measure is "are you better off than your grandparents time on time, will you be better off when your parents pass and a house becomes yours or a share of it". I think the vast majority would have to say yes to this question and your children will have the same yes in due time. There are obviously blips in this as some children do not do as well and sometimes in drastic measures will suffer more, longevity of parents and also failure to get as good a job as parents can be reasons but again in the majority it will hold true.

My son is on a job just below the 40hr week threshold such that the company he works for do not have to pay his medical insurance, at this time we as parent are paying his medical insurance, this is US based and while hopefully he never needs it the risk not to have it is to great should he need it for an emergency. However a time will come when he get's a share of what we have and he will be wealthy in a way.

When people work hard for what they get and are in the top 1% of income, which as already stated is not all that high, they pay there taxes and do contribute and it does trickle down.

The gap will get wider, it's a fact of life and will continue to be unless the Trot's like JC get in, then I will believe that some wealth and people will leave the UK and that in general is not going to be good for the country as a whole, certain things will stop people from being attracted to put money in to the UK even those that don't live here, stamp duty etc have already caused that to some effect. Trying to take from the super rich who have already accumulated wealth can not be right either, there has to be a fine line that continues to keep the super rich here and attract others to invest in the UK, taxing them is not a solution.

Its worth googling 'cycle of deprivation'. A lot of people do not achieve any more or less than their parents

[CrosspoolClarets]

Do you have any source for this sort of information please?

Yes.

Bear in mind that I’m not a politician nor a journalist, I’m just making casual comments on here in a spare 5 minutes, so I don’t feel the need to source anything. I do though try to be fair and honest.

The figures I used above I got from having read a few days ago the IMF Fiscal Monitor (I’m sad like that). The spreadsheet not the words. Ive just quickly looked up the file again and found the top 1% and 10% share by country. Annex Figure 1.2.1

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publi ... t2017.ashx

[AndrewJB]

One of the most shocking stats in the documentary is that 70% of new developments in London are sold to overseas investors.

[Paul Waine]

One of the most shocking stats in the documentary is that 70% of new developments in London are sold to overseas investors.

Hi Andrew, I'm not sure it's "shocking" - but it does reflect the challenge of getting the supply/demand balance right.

From the overseas investors point of view: UK - a safe place to invest; exchange rates have massively tipped GBP/foreign currency in favour of the overseas currency; London house prices (have been) rising very strongly - in a world of historically low yields.

Expectations are that London house prices are going nowhere for the next 5 years (some of them are coming down). I expect we will see a fall in overseas interest if GBP stabilises around US$1.30 (which it has the past few months). Only the "I need to hide some money..." guys will be buying when the financial investment returns are flat.

UK would be "winning" if all the builder of new developments are paying UK income tax. More developments = more jobs = more tax revenues. (We just need to forget that it is residential property that the workers are producing).

And, maybe one or two of these properties will be available to rent.

[AndrewJB]

I call it shocking because we have a housing crisis in London at the same time. It’s an example of market dysfunction. There are more empty homes in London than there are homeless people. And rents are sky high - complete drag on the economy.

[Hipper]

But they do Hipper, because so many of the people living in rented accommodation are on benefits. The tenants don't pick up the tab, the social does. Another problem with the system.

Has the 'benefits cap' had an impact then?

Maybe I'm think it too simplistically but, in certain areas, there are too many people seeking accommodation and not enough accommodation.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ec ... -prices-up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was written before Brexit so the predictions will probably be wrong but the principles correct.

[Foshiznik]

But they do Hipper, because so many of the people living in rented accommodation are on benefits. The tenants don't pick up the tab, the social does. Another problem with the system.

I currently pay £750 rent in Bristol for little more than a bedsit. I was refused a mortgage as unaffordable when the monthly payment was £575. That would have brought my monthly payment down significantly, but no, I can't afford it supposedly, whilst my landlord gets a big payday for little work.

Edit: Just to clarify, i am in full time employment and not on benefits.

[Colburn_Claret]

I currently pay £750 rent in Bristol for little more than a bedsit. I was refused a mortgage as unaffordable when the monthly payment was £575. That would have brought my monthly payment down significantly, but no, I can't afford it supposedly, whilst my landlord gets a big payday for little work.

Edit: Just to clarify, i am in full time employment and not on benefits.

I'd made that point in an earlier post Fosh, it's sodding madness, unnecessary and only feeds the landlords. I sympathise with you.

[Rowls]

Yes, it's a very delicate balance and we shouldn't do anything rash or hasty which might scare wealth and investment away from this country..........

Well said JohnMcGreal.

Scare away the top earners and we'd be scaring away our tax receipts. We need that money for schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure, defence, etc...

It's great that the wealthiest are paying the highest ever percentage of tax receipts.

[KateR]

Its worth googling 'cycle of deprivation'. A lot of people do not achieve any more or less than their parents

That's why I said clearly grand parents!!

Are you, or do you know anyone who is less well off than there grandparents? I certainly don't and I do not need google or any other so called expert to draw me graphs to try and prove my point, I know a lot of people and not one, old or young that I know are not poorer. You sometimes just need to look around and use your own brain to formulate ideas and thoughts, am willing to debate anything also so mind is open.

hope my thoughts are better understood now.

[KateR]

One of the most shocking stats in the documentary is that 70% of new developments in London are sold to overseas investors.

while you may think it's shocking I don't understand why, it's investors that see the UK and London in particular as a good place to put their money and get a decent return on their money. If they didn't we would probably have less of an accommodation shortage you may think, but the reason people flock to London because jobs are available, if the investors weren't not there then London and the country would be a poorer place.

as someone said previously it is always about supply and demand, same with commodities, people investing regardless of what it is means people will not have jobs, and therefore can't afford to buy a house, similar to how it is today. Investors pay tax also, so the tax burden is not just for UK citizens

[Paul Waine]

I call it shocking because we have a housing crisis in London at the same time. It’s an example of market dysfunction. There are more empty homes in London than there are homeless people. And rents are sky high - complete drag on the economy.

Hi Andrew, I agree with you fully that the London property market is "dysfunctional" - and that there is a "housing crisis" in London - and other areas of high demand and low supply.

My first step in solving the crisis is to move Parliament (House of Commons) out of Westminster - at the next election the MPs should be based in Manchester/N.West and then 5 years later MPs should move to North East, then Bristol, Midland/Birmingham - and, maybe London/S.East every 25 years or so. (Palace of Westminster would make a great museum/historical building).

It would be great for the MPs to get to know all our country. (I'd include Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland on the list, if they would also welcome the UK MPs). If we can relocate the MPs, of course, a lot of the people/jobs and power that surrounds our MPs would follow them. This will reduce demand in London/S.East and build jobs (and housing demand) across the rest of the country. It would be a great start in "re-balancing" our economy.

Who knows, a "small" change for 600 (or 650) MPs might also result in a few of the super-rich getting to know more of our wonderful country - and reducing more of the "inequality.

[Hipper]

MPs do know our country - their constituencies are all over it!

[Hipper]

I currently pay £750 rent in Bristol for little more than a bedsit. I was refused a mortgage as unaffordable when the monthly payment was £575. That would have brought my monthly payment down significantly, but no, I can't afford it supposedly, whilst my landlord gets a big payday for little work.

1. How do you know how much work your landlord has done to buy the flat you rent?

2. It is likely he has got a mortgage on the property and he has 'bought to let'.

3. You will presumably be pleased to know that in 2015 (introduced by the much maligned George Osborne) the tax arrangements on landlord's profits for renting has reduced his profit, and will reduce it further in future years:

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/landlor ... ax-relief/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

I currently pay £750 rent in Bristol for little more than a bedsit. I was refused a mortgage as unaffordable when the monthly payment was £575. That would have brought my monthly payment down significantly, but no, I can't afford it supposedly, whilst my landlord gets a big payday for little work.

Edit: Just to clarify, i am in full time employment and not on benefits.

Can't blame the landlord for the banks being unreasonable.

Anyway, if it's a bedsit, presumably there are several of you sharing the house. If the landlord was forced to stop renting, then you'd want a property each - that's not going to help the housing shortage.

[Inchy]

That's why I said clearly grand parents!!

Are you, or do you know anyone who is less well off than there grandparents? I certainly don't and I do not need google or any other so called expert to draw me graphs to try and prove my point, I know a lot of people and not one, old or young that I know are not poorer. You sometimes just need to look around and use your own brain to formulate ideas and thoughts, am willing to debate anything also so mind is open.

hope my thoughts are better understood now.

Sorry I read that as parents, however my points still stands. Deprivation continues thought the generations. You say that he 1 percent have worked hard for it. I know some people who have been granted that wealth. I don’t therefore think the majority have been granted that wealth

[Inchy]

“Are you, or do you know anyone who is less well off than there grandparents?”

Yes I do. Do you? Try buy a house these days.

“ I certainly don't and I do not need google or any other so called expert to draw me graphs to try and prove my point.”

Ok let’s ignore experts and research

“ I know a lot of people and not one, old or young that I know are not poorer. “

Eh?

“You sometimes just need to look around and use your own brain to formulate ideas and thoughts, “

Very good I agree

[Hipper]

I think it was meant as 'less well off then your grand parents, when they were young'.

I would hope old people will be better off then younger ones as they have had a lifetime to get there.

[JohnMcGreal]

Scare away the top earners and we'd be scaring away our tax receipts. We need that money for schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure, defence, etc...