FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Who's Gonna Pay?
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 27 200222 years288th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
11th Jun 23 20:4411th Jun 23 20:53LINK
Milestone Posts
15000
20000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
On the road
Signature
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:52 pm  
Mild Rover wrote:
VAT comes from already taxed income, for example, and presumably the inheritors haven’t paid tax previously on what they are inheriting.

The success of our economic system is based around productive economic activity. We can tax income, transactions and assets. Intuitively, and based on no research or evidence whatsoever, I wonder if less of the first two and more of the latter would be a better mix for the UK economy. You could, ideally, tax assets differentially to encourage productive investment ahead of rent-seeking and speculation.


But the person bequeathing the inheritance has paid tax during the time they amassed the inheritance - surely that is unfair that the proceeds of potentially doing without conspicuous spending to invest in a property should be taxed once again?

The problem with your theory is that the whole economic system is routed in the value of property - if you have these type of assets you can borrow to invest to increase income and transactions. How many small businesses start with loans guaranteed by PG's on their house. Property businesses are just as legitimate an enterprise as a manufacturing business. These businesses are long term investors who often provide the facilities for your income and transaction generation. Most businesses couldn't afford to invest in the purchase of their property.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Moderator12565
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 01 200717 years118th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
18th Mar 24 13:2817th Mar 24 10:56LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leicestershire.
Signature
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Moderator

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:43 pm  
Sal Paradise wrote:
But the person bequeathing the inheritance has paid tax during the time they amassed the inheritance - surely that is unfair that the proceeds of potentially doing without conspicuous spending to invest in a property should be taxed once again?

The problem with your theory is that the whole economic system is routed in the value of property - if you have these type of assets you can borrow to invest to increase income and transactions. How many small businesses start with loans guaranteed by PG's on their house. Property businesses are just as legitimate an enterprise as a manufacturing business. These businesses are long term investors who often provide the facilities for your income and transaction generation. Most businesses couldn't afford to invest in the purchase of their property.


Every choice is a sacrifice. One could easily make arguments about the unfairness of taxes on income or transactions. Wealth taxes are not at all unusual in the US. And aren’t capitalist arguments usually based around hard nosed efficiency rather than woolly fairness?

As with income tax, I would suggest there’s a threshold and it could easily be set at a level that has no impact on those looking to secure modest five-figure loans to establish small businesses. It is also far from all about inheritance.

Legitimacy is a slippery term, but I would agree that many property businesses put capital to use in a way that benefits the economy, investing in building and renovation to provide capacity. And many rental businesses offer value by offering flexibility. However, profit based entirely or almost entirely on ownership without adding much or any value, while possibly efficient on the personal level, isn’t efficient for the broader economy.

To use a simple ye olde example, imagine a land owner is paid rent by a dozen small holders who farm the land. While they couldn’t afford to buy their plots, the land owner isn’t really offering any value - the existence of the land isn’t dependent on his ownership. Nonetheless, over time he becomes wealthy and neighbouring land becomes available. Ideally you’d want him to invest his capital in something innovative that may boost economic growth, so that should be incentivised. Just outbidding the neighbouring tenant farmers for land is inefficient and should be disincentivized.

If you want encourage work and productivity, there’s a case for low income tax. If you want encourage economic activity there’s a case for minimising taxes on it. The arguments for an absence of wealth taxes seem weaker to me.

Capitalist economic systems are malleable and adaptable. Our system may be rooted in the value of property, but it could be tweaked to be more rooted in the value of work and productivity, making it easier for anybody who works hard to generate the capital they need to start a business, rather than having to rely more on pre-existing wealth. That’s desirable, isn’t it?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 27 200222 years288th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
11th Jun 23 20:4411th Jun 23 20:53LINK
Milestone Posts
15000
20000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
On the road
Signature
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:43 pm  
Mild Rover wrote:
Every choice is a sacrifice. One could easily make arguments about the unfairness of taxes on income or transactions. Wealth taxes are not at all unusual in the US. And aren’t capitalist arguments usually based around hard nosed efficiency rather than woolly fairness?

As with income tax, I would suggest there’s a threshold and it could easily be set at a level that has no impact on those looking to secure modest five-figure loans to establish small businesses. It is also far from all about inheritance.

Legitimacy is a slippery term, but I would agree that many property businesses put capital to use in a way that benefits the economy, investing in building and renovation to provide capacity. And many rental businesses offer value by offering flexibility. However, profit based entirely or almost entirely on ownership without adding much or any value, while possibly efficient on the personal level, isn’t efficient for the broader economy.

To use a simple ye olde example, imagine a land owner is paid rent by a dozen small holders who farm the land. While they couldn’t afford to buy their plots, the land owner isn’t really offering any value - the existence of the land isn’t dependent on his ownership. Nonetheless, over time he becomes wealthy and neighbouring land becomes available. Ideally you’d want him to invest his capital in something innovative that may boost economic growth, so that should be incentivised. Just outbidding the neighbouring tenant farmers for land is inefficient and should be disincentivized.

If you want encourage work and productivity, there’s a case for low income tax. If you want encourage economic activity there’s a case for minimising taxes on it. The arguments for an absence of wealth taxes seem weaker to me.

Capitalist economic systems are malleable and adaptable. Our system may be rooted in the value of property, but it could be tweaked to be more rooted in the value of work and productivity, making it easier for anybody who works hard to generate the capital they need to start a business, rather than having to rely more on pre-existing wealth. That’s desirable, isn’t it?


Capitalism revolves around the efficient use of capital and maximising the outcomes of investing it whilst limiting the financial exposure to the value of the initial investment. It seems odd to me that you pay taxes like everyone else yet you should be penalised because you have either made better investment decisions or you have sacrificed spending to build up savings?

Most businesses would see property as a poor investment - why - because its growth in value is so slow, would you invest £1m in a building that grows at 2% or put it into a a business that delivers 10% even including the rent of the building. Property investment is a specialist long term investment that supports business - investing in the construction of a factory or an office block is a long way removed the Feudal land owning system pre the industrial revolution.

Yes low taxation is an encouragement but you amongst many on here were calling for increases in corporation tax - so I am confused as to your views and which side you are on.

Without the investment in property nobody has anywhere to work from - its an intrinsic element of the capital model. The lower the initial investment in a start up the more chance it has to get through the initial learning curve - that's desirable isn't it?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach17868
JoinedServiceReputation
Apr 24 201113 years45th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
18th Mar 24 13:3918th Mar 24 11:24LINK
Milestone Posts
15000
20000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:23 pm  
Sal Paradise wrote:
Capitalism revolves around the efficient use of capital and maximising the outcomes of investing it whilst limiting the financial exposure to the value of the initial investment. It seems odd to me that you pay taxes like everyone else yet you should be penalised because you have either made better investment decisions or you have sacrificed spending to build up savings?

Most businesses would see property as a poor investment - why - because its growth in value is so slow, would you invest £1m in a building that grows at 2% or put it into a a business that delivers 10% even including the rent of the building. Property investment is a specialist long term investment that supports business - investing in the construction of a factory or an office block is a long way removed the Feudal land owning system pre the industrial revolution.

Yes low taxation is an encouragement but you amongst many on here were calling for increases in corporation tax - so I am confused as to your views and which side you are on.

Without the investment in property nobody has anywhere to work from - its an intrinsic element of the capital model. The lower the initial investment in a start up the more chance it has to get through the initial learning curve - that's desirable isn't it?


This is all well and good but, if your investments grow as a direct result of government policy, you could be making huge gains without actually "doing anything" and in those circumstances, it's "right" to pay some additional tax on your gains.
The bottom line is that it is ridiculous for everyone to pay the same amount of tax - remember the poll tax
Therefore, the heaviest burden should always fall on those who can afford to pay, regardless of how each of us have chosen to live our lives.

If I pee my income up against a wall on a Friday and Saturday night and smoke 40 a day, I will have paid over plenty of "extra" tax and equally, if I choose to spend nothing and save every penny that I earn, I will have paid relatively little.

It should be made much harder for individuals to hide their cash offshore and corporations should pay sensible amounts of tax on their profits but, the bottom line is that the cash will need to come from somewhere and you cant tax those with nothing and therefore the burden will rightly fall on those who have most.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Moderator12565
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 01 200717 years118th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
18th Mar 24 13:2817th Mar 24 10:56LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leicestershire.
Signature
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Moderator

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:41 pm  
Sal Paradise wrote:
Capitalism revolves around the efficient use of capital and maximising the outcomes of investing it whilst limiting the financial exposure to the value of the initial investment. It seems odd to me that you pay taxes like everyone else yet you should be penalised because you have either made better investment decisions or you have sacrificed spending to build up savings?


And efficient use of capital is more likely with well aligned and directed incentives. I’m not suggesting this as punitive. It is also about ability to pay, the same as progressive income tax rates. Those that have benefitted most from society (as well as their own hard work and talent) putting more (per person) back in to support ongoing societal and broad economic well being. I assume we agree that is the goal, irrespective of what the optimal route to it might be.

Do you find Council Tax odd? Would you argue for something like the Poll Tax in its place?

Sal Paradise wrote:
Most businesses would see property as a poor investment - why - because its growth in value is so slow, would you invest £1m in a building that grows at 2% or put it into a a business that delivers 10% even including the rent of the building. Property investment is a specialist long term investment that supports business - investing in the construction of a factory or an office block is a long way removed the Feudal land owning system pre the industrial revolution.


Why the boom in private landlords until the government put in tax disincentives? Property in some ways carries low risks, and according to my homes under hammer-based research, a 2% annual return on investment would be unusually meagre even before any appreciation in the value of the asset. Obviously investment in construction and renovation is different... and wouldn’t be especially imperilled by a personal wealth tax, so far as I can see.

Sal Paradise wrote:
Yes low taxation is an encouragement but you amongst many on here were calling for increases in corporation tax - so I am confused as to your views and which side you are on.


Did I? It sounds plausible, but I don’t remember. My point here isn’t about high tax or low, but the source of tax revenue and highlighting a source that I think has been rather neglected, imo. A new wealth tax could alleviate fiscal pressures elsewhere.

Sal Paradise wrote:
Without the investment in property nobody has anywhere to work from - its an intrinsic element of the capital model. The lower the initial investment in a start up the more chance it has to get through the initial learning curve - that's desirable isn't it?


I agree with both of those statements, although I don’t see how a wealth tax or well-targeted incentives would reduce investment or make starting up less affordable. I think you’re extending my criticism of rentier capitalism to any business where there’s a rental payment.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 27 200222 years288th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
11th Jun 23 20:4411th Jun 23 20:53LINK
Milestone Posts
15000
20000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
On the road
Signature
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:35 am  
wrencat1873 wrote:
This is all well and good but, if your investments grow as a direct result of government policy, you could be making huge gains without actually "doing anything" and in those circumstances, it's "right" to pay some additional tax on your gains.
The bottom line is that it is ridiculous for everyone to pay the same amount of tax - remember the poll tax
Therefore, the heaviest burden should always fall on those who can afford to pay, regardless of how each of us have chosen to live our lives.

If I pee my income up against a wall on a Friday and Saturday night and smoke 40 a day, I will have paid over plenty of "extra" tax and equally, if I choose to spend nothing and save every penny that I earn, I will have paid relatively little.

It should be made much harder for individuals to hide their cash offshore and corporations should pay sensible amounts of tax on their profits but, the bottom line is that the cash will need to come from somewhere and you cant tax those with nothing and therefore the burden will rightly fall on those who have most.


I don't disagree with a tax system that rises the more you earn - in fact I would raise the personal allowance to £15k straight away for those whose incomes are taxed at the basic rate. The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts is tiny in the greater scheme of events it really is.

The success of any taxation system is based on fairness and transparency - otherwise it simply will not work - the black economy in the country is colossal - doubt many drug dealers are paying their taxes, how many jobs have you had done at home for cash etc. It was no surprise that as the government lowered CT revenues began to increase.

The problem you have is tax is a global entity and as such unless it is the same everywhere you will find the clever are capable of protecting the interests of those who employ them and governments deliberately leave loop holes in legislation.

It is very likely that those who benefit most from unearned income would be those who pay IT at the higher rates, they will run bigger cars, have more expensive insurance policies, better furnishings etc - all of which will have seen them contribute far more over their life than someone who perhaps gambles their money, spends it on prostitutes or gambles it away?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Star4641
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 25 201014 years182nd
OnlineLast PostLast Page
17th Mar 24 08:2514th Mar 24 11:07LINK
Milestone Posts
2500
5000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
WF4
Signature
"Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him."

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:00 am  
Sal Paradise wrote:
The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts is tiny in the greater scheme of events it really is.


The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts might be tiny, but the money they are hiding isn't.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-money-offshore-makes-inequality-look-even-worse?r=US&IR=T
Sal Paradise wrote:
The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts is tiny in the greater scheme of events it really is.


The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts might be tiny, but the money they are hiding isn't.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-money-offshore-makes-inequality-look-even-worse?r=US&IR=T
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Moderator12565
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 01 200717 years118th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
18th Mar 24 13:2817th Mar 24 10:56LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leicestershire.
Signature
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Moderator

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:37 am  
Sal Paradise wrote:
I don't disagree with a tax system that rises the more you earn - in fact I would raise the personal allowance to £15k straight away for those whose incomes are taxed at the basic rate. The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts is tiny in the greater scheme of events it really is.

The success of any taxation system is based on fairness and transparency - otherwise it simply will not work - the black economy in the country is colossal - doubt many drug dealers are paying their taxes, how many jobs have you had done at home for cash etc. It was no surprise that as the government lowered CT revenues began to increase.

The problem you have is tax is a global entity and as such unless it is the same everywhere you will find the clever are capable of protecting the interests of those who employ them and governments deliberately leave loop holes in legislation.

It is very likely that those who benefit most from unearned income would be those who pay IT at the higher rates, they will run bigger cars, have more expensive insurance policies, better furnishings etc - all of which will have seen them contribute far more over their life than someone who perhaps gambles their money, spends it on prostitutes or gambles it away?


Transparently trying to take advantage of the fact it is easier and more fun to attack a position than defend one, what tax and or public spending changes would you like to see as we emerge from this health crisis?

Just to note that is you raise the personal allowance only for those paying only basic rate income tax, around the cut-off level with the higher rate you’d get people earning more taking home less in absolute terms as well as relative to their gross pay and who would be better off with a pay cut to just below the threshold.
RankPostsTeam
International Star1100No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 25 201113 years221st
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd Oct 23 17:392nd Oct 23 14:04LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: Who's Gonna Pay? : Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:40 pm  
King Street Cat wrote:
The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts might be tiny, but the money they are hiding isn't.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-money-offshore-makes-inequality-look-even-worse?r=US&IR=T


Correct, that’s the point, and the real reason behind Brexit :D
King Street Cat wrote:
The number of individuals/companies with offshore accounts might be tiny, but the money they are hiding isn't.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-money-offshore-makes-inequality-look-even-worse?r=US&IR=T


Correct, that’s the point, and the real reason behind Brexit :D
Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 131 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
Recent
This weeks disciplinary
rubber ducki
990
Recent
Todays match v London
rubber ducki
61
Recent
DoR Director of Rugby
rubber ducki
38
Recent
Giants in the Cup - can we get Up for the Cup
giddyupoldfe
71
Recent
Smith - should he stay or should he go
giddyupoldfe
174
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
55519
Recent
Good Friday
MattyB
60
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Leigh at home
B0NES
382
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
33861
2m
Wire at home
Smithers99
60
2m
State of the Nation
B0NES
153
2m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
leedsbarmyar
1364
3m
Other Championship Clubs
Belle Vue
72
4m
Good Friday
MattyB
60
4m
Injuries
Listenup94
37
4m
Smith - should he stay or should he go
giddyupoldfe
174
4m
DoR Director of Rugby
rubber ducki
38
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Programmes for sale
Brian Middle
1
TODAY
Aussie programmes and books for sale
Brian Middle
1
TODAY
Widnes programmes for sale
Brian Middle
1
TODAY
Mark Campbell to step down at Fev
RoyBoy29
1
TODAY
RL Podcasts
RL Outsiders
1
TODAY
Oliver Holmes
LeythIg
4
TODAY
New Poster
BarnsleyTrin
9
TODAY
Easy Win for the Wolves Over London Moves Them Top
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Todays match v London
rubber ducki
61
TODAY
Charlie Birdsall RIP
hull2524
12
TODAY
Total rl
Bullseye
4
TODAY
Giants in the Cup - can we get Up for the Cup
giddyupoldfe
71
TODAY
Sheffield
moto748
3
TODAY
Road Roller Required to flatten & Press
Start@1873
3
TODAY
Dragons Condemn Castleford To Another Loss
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Dreadful - Watsons future
Murphy
14
TODAY
Smith - should he stay or should he go
giddyupoldfe
174
TODAY
Leigh Leopards Secure First Points Of The Season In Style
Budgiezilla
2
TODAY
Hull FC
PopTart
13
TODAY
Oliver Russell
Wollo-Wollo-
5
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
Easy Win for the Wolves Over L..
251
Dragons Condemn Castleford To ..
329
Leigh Leopards Secure First Po..
433
St Helens Tame The Rhinos To W..
460
Wigan Warriors Come From Behin..
550
Betfred Championship and Leagu..
631
2024 Challenge Cup Sixth Round..
3351
Featherstone Win Extra Time Cu..
843
Dragons Triumph Over Hull FC t..
740
Leeds Rhinos Win Game of Two H..
952
Warrington Beat Hull KR In Bre..
861
Hull FC Win At The Death To Cr..
1155
Salford Red Devils Spoil Hull ..
963
Leeds Rhinos Battle Hard for D..
1122
Warriors Maintain Great Start ..
1132
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Table 'boards.stats_fixtures' doesn't exist