Duke of Westminster and tax

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

Hello again Paul Waine. I don't know where you live, how much you earn, or your net worth, but you are describing a world the vast majority simply do not inhabit. So, in the last 2 weeks, we've had:

abolish corporation tax; increase inheritance tax threshold to x millions; replace the NHS with an insurance-based system; suggested the richest 1% already pay too much tax. Yet you label Corbyn an extremist.

I do believe your views are very much in tune with the Conservative Party, however. Not that they would ever come out and say it. (Or indeed say anything, it seems.) Perhaps if they did state what their policies actually were, these would be them.

Hi iibyw, yes, we all now know that the "top 5% of incomes" are above £80,000 p.a. (thanks to JC and JMD).

I want more people to have good jobs, more people to enjoy a high standard of living, more people to be "well educated" and for those that aren't able to enjoy these advantages I want all the ones that do have these advantages to "share their good fortune" with those that need their support. I want everyone to have access to an excellent health service. I want more "love and friendship" amongst all peoples - both in the UK and across the world (including the EU).

I look at the way politicians address issues. I think about whether they will provide the things I want (and I want these things, not for me, but everyone), I think will their plans make the world "a better place." And, if I can see evidence that they won't do this, often that the same ideas have been tried before and not produced the outcomes the politicians claim they will, then I call them out." I criticise their poor ideas, I criticise their "weak thinking" and I criticise the political games they play that are aimed at manipulating the electorate, bribing or simply deceiving people to vote for them. I don't "doff my cap" to politicians of any party - and I don't expect anyone else to "doff their caps" either.

So, my tax proposals are aimed at a fair taxation system, one that the wealthy aren't able to escape, whereas the less wealthy (who can't afford accountancy/legal advice) are caught out by unfair rules. A tax system that will collect the taxation the country requires - without being envious of the successful and driving them away from our country because of taxes have been set too high. (I was here in the 1970s when this is exactly what happened).

And, I've got a lot of experience of the NHS. They are "brilliant" if you present as an emergency (so long as it's easy to know you are an emergency), but they are not so good with the follow-up. And, this is not a funding issue, this is a structural issue. The failing of the NHS is the "free at the point of use" principle. All the major European countries have better health services, all those I know use compulsory health insurance (and the lower incomes are assisted with the costs, I support this strongly).

You might have also seen me posting about abolishing the House of Lords - and banning all "lord" and "sir" titles for politicians - and for their favoured business contacts and donors. You might have seen me posting about moving parliament to Manchester (Northern Powerhouse) at the next general election in 2022. And, you might have seen me post that I'm pleased Andy Burnham is the mayor of Manchester.

I'm a kid from the cobbled streets of Accrington. I'm now in my 60s, somewhere between "not working and retired." I want what's right for my children and grandchild (only 1 at present) and I want what is right and best for you and your family and friends and all the UK. Jeremy Corbyn is not the way forward for any of us (and, yes, he is an extremist however seductive he makes "taking back your wealth" sound). Whether I fit into a "left of centre Conservative party" or a "right of centre Labour party" I don't know - neither of those choices really exist. Who knows, maybe I should try and do a Macron and get my own party going. Will you consider joining me?

Stop taking, start giving (c) Paul Waine 2017

[ablueclaret]

Name and shame and strip them of their titles, with a little confiscation of land to give to the nation.

[IanMcL]

nationalise the land or place the nations debt on the large landowners.

[Paul Waine]

Name and shame and strip them of their titles, with a little confiscation of land to give to the nation.

The thing is there are too many lords and dames who are just retired politicians. Thankfully they aren't awarded any significant land/property rights when they are "kicked upstairs" to the HoL.

[Lancasterclaret]

Telegraph article about it from this year.

Those on here who think its linked to the Norman Conquest might want to read it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/inherita ... perk-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hipper]

Isn't everyone who is a property owner directly linked to distribution of lands after the Norman Conquest?

Isn't Inheritance Tax an effective wealth redistribution tax?

[Lancasterclaret]

Dunno, I assume you own a house? I do, but I don't consider myself a beneficiary of the redistribution of lands after the Northern Revolt of 1069!

Of course, and I agree with it. Effective tax planning (which everyone should do btw) mitigates it.

[dsr]

Isn't everyone who is a property owner directly linked to distribution of lands after the Norman Conquest?

I'm a property owner, and I've just flicked through the Domesday Book and not seen my name mentioned. So no.

[AndrewJB]

Some people say we must not 'punish' the successful by taxing their income more as it grows, but this is exactly what the 'wealth creators' do to the people who work for them. Anyone working in a sales environment, for example, will have a target - the overhitting of which will see a bigger paycheque as a result. However when the next targets are set they'll be based on what was achieved, eating up the difference. Therefore the income of the sales person will remain relatively stable, while their productivity grows. This is the same across many industries, as productivity has been consistently pocketed by business owners while wages have remained stagnant if not fallen. At the one end 'wealth creators' have successfully held on to their profits against taxation, and at the other they've retained nearly all the productivity gains, by keeping wages down. They have been having their cake and eating it too.

For me the conversation around wealth should coalesce around two points: Firstly we have to look after the people at the bottom of the economic pile first and foremost, because the burden in taxation to do this is far less than the burden of carrying a segment of the population who cannot participate in the economy. And likewise we need to recognise that beyond a certain point (greater than that of which ordinary people might aspire), it's of no use to society or the individuals concerned to amass greater wealth. What that level might be is open for debate, but I'm sure we'll all agree that a billionaire cannot possibly work as hard as a thousand millionaires, and to see this isn't envy but simple common sense.