Bingo-that really is the answer history tells us this-Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire-excessive taxes eventually kill your country bc wealthy can leave so economy of country falls
You wouldn't want to move to New Zealand by any chance? If you do things are arguably a lot worse. We have become locked into Neoliberalism since 1984 and one of the parties (the ACT Party) was born out of the ashes of a betraying Labour Party that preceded it and we had an even worse government that followed - a National government with Ruth Richardson as Finance Minister where neoliberalism was expressed in an even more extreme and cruel way. She was so awful that not even Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, could stomach her any longer and sacked her. This is when our society became really unequal, but we had a voting system (MMP) that locked in a situation of political timidity that panders to the middle, swinging voters so nothing ever gets done, except for the benefit of the rich and so-called middle voters whose interests are purely for themselves and what they can get out of the government's so-called promises. The latest government has a National prime minister who was CEO of Air New Zealand and wants to run the government along corporate lines. National has two coalition partners who claim to have a mandate for their vile policies, including trashing the environment and destroying what's left of out natural biodiversity for so-called development projects (chosen by three undemocratic ministers) including mining, and more roads at the expense of rail, coastal shipping, cycling and walking - all at the expense of managing CO2 emissions and consequent global warming. They're also taking an axe to the health system, social welfare, all for protecting the interests of the wealthy. If they have a plan for anything, they haven't communicated it to long-suffering New Zealanders. They're New Zealand's answer to Boeing, but we can only hope that either they develop some sense and compassion or they're voted out as a one-term government. The two coalition partners (ACT and New Zealand First) claim to have been given a mandate to put forward their insane and insulting policies that retraumatises Maori in a racist and neo-colonial fit of pique by the ACT leader, but, between them, they only got around 17% of the vote, compared with the more left wing Green Party that got over 13% alone. Their claim to have a mandate is hardly credible and they are the tail of a very small chihuahua wagging a large St Bernard, nevertheless they hold the balance of power. All three coalition partners are New Zealand's political answer to Boeing and just as incompetent and, dare I say, corrupt. It is hard to believe that the British Tories are any worse than what we have here, but hearing Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg speak I'm hardly filled with confidence. It seems as if it's Prince Andrew running the country and determining policy.
I would argue that this tax system is one of the reasons we have low economic growth because it doesn’t encourage us to be productive. Why would anyone with lots of money invest in new factories and technologies when they can buy and sell assets, such as property, which will earn more money than working on something that improves the countries ability/productivity in producing something like a good or service?
Not to mention, when you earn over £50k a year, you are considered to be "rich," and half of everything over that goes to the government. Meanwhile, buying a modest house in London would cost you £600k minimum.
You have hit the mail on the head. Investing in production, through company shares has a level of risk which is far greater than teh risk involved in owning property. So house prices rise, benefiting existing owners, and companies find themselves borrowing at terms which are difficult to pay.
Harry Lambert suggests we take money from those who have acquired more and give it to those have less. Who would work harder knowing they will have to hand it over to those that work less?
@@A190xx If I have interpreted your point correctly, it depends on how it's acquired and then depends on where it goes. If it's simply tax the rich more and then hand it out in 'out of work' benefits then i agree, it stops aspiration of those who strive as they climb into greater wealth. If you tax capital gains the same as you would income, then invest that into proper healthcare, education, transport and improving deprived areas then it creates more options for those less well off to become strivers themselves. The current tax situation perpetuates inequality of choice and options available. Society can't help those who won't help themselves, but it should at least provide help to those who choose to do so. I can't see the current system doing that and we need money to help them.
I am particularly upset as high earner. I just worked over a year to earn a significant bonus. The tax burden is so high, it prevents me or anyone from ever becoming wealthy as an employee. The only path to true wealth is via the limited company/corporation.
Ir35 destroyed a lot of workers. Tax is 2 high.. not worth working, let others pay the tax for benefits.. everyone should do it, make life a lot less stressful.
Don't forget trusts and offshoring, which is where most of the country's hidden wealth and corruption, centered in the City of London, right under our very noses.
For profit corporation of the treasury is double-dealing. Tricking natural, living breathing men / women workers into accepting imposed liability to pay, on the part of a 'person' - a legal fiction corporate entity. But you are not liable, being not a "person". Or body of "persons" corporate or un incorporate. However, the choice is a personal one. But keep feeding the cash hungry monster and it will devour you all. It is following the WEF-led plan of you all owing NOTHING - not even the work you do; and being happy about it. Caveat emptor.
Ads aren’t random. Maybe you’re interested in taxes, so it targets you. But I swear you get ads that are deliberately the opposite of what you are watching. So you watch something on climate and get an oil company ad, or about the housing crisis and get a passive income guru ad. My theory is that it is deliberate and the purpose is to inject a counter narrative, or seed of doubt, that spoils the message you are listening to
I love that these corrupt politicians are being found out by these intelligent people. People are finally awakening to these corrupt and illegal schemes that is being imposed on them.
Sounds like bunch of populistic leftie propoganda. Wealth tax is what it is. You'll try to tax these people with higher taxes they'll move the money out and you'll get nothing. For them it's easier to move capital then for regular people. Many have tried and failed. There has to be another solution than take from rich give to the poor. Never worked and never will.
Great comment more and more citizens of the U.K. are understanding how deeply corrupt our politicians are. Slowly but surely more of the corruption will be exposed
As a business owner I've reached a point where I now see little to no value in investing further in my own business. Any potential increase in returns is so punitively taxed that it's no longer attractive in any way shape or form. The bigger problem I see is there's no viable alternative to the shambles we currently have in power. We have two major political parties that are simply varying degrees of right with seemingly nothing new on offer. I'm in my 50's and I've never before reached a point where I don't feel there is a party who I feel inclined to support. I genuinely see no viable party right now.
@@PazLeBonno not everyone wants to “own the world”. Not even the top 10% want to own the world. You only need an income of £60k to be in the top 10%. And the top 1% only earn £173k per year. Sounds a lot I know, and I wish that was me… but even that is not a tremendous amount of money. No it’s only about one or two dozen people in total who really want to “own the world”. Most people just want to own a decent home, have a nice car, go on holiday every year and be able to retire without worrying. The top 1% are still just small fry’s.
Cut budget of prisons: more drugs and overfull prisons. Cut budget to rebuild schools: pupils cannot attend crumbling schools. Cut budgets to Councils: roads are terrible, councils going bust, poor social services, poor children's services. The list of years of cutting budgets is our country becoming crap.
To be fair my person opinion is that if you are an adult you should be able to put whatever you want in your own body and we should be legalizing and taxing drugs because all drug criminalization does is create a revenue stream for criminals, costs police time and tax payer money locking people away, and I mean all drugs. This would need to come with labelling to be like this can cause X, Y and Z and for drugs that do cause aggression-which I would like to point out alcohol is worse than most illicit drugs when it comes to that-a special that this drug is known to cause excess aggressive tendencies and that if you commit a violent crime while under it's influence you will be subject to forced rehab and a longer jail sentence. This is not to actually stop people committing violent crimes while under the influence, it's cautionary so that people are less likely to take it in the first place and if they do they take precessions so they can't hurt anyone else before they take it. Also you would be taking a chunk of that tax money from the sale of drugs and putting it into rehabilitation clinics and public awareness of drugs and legalization has been shown to decrease the rate at which people take drugs, almost eliminate overdosing, cutting off a funding source for organized crime and the rest of the supply chain for the illicit production and distribution of illegal drugs and putting it in the hands of people above board which will bluster the economy. There is nothing but up sides for legalization as long as you enable good quality treatment for addiction.
It is has always amazed me that we tax actual work progressively at 20%, 40% and 45% but capitals gains tax is lower at 10% and 20% (18% and 28% for residential property). So you literally get taxed more for producing goods and services and contributing to the economy than being lucky enough to own assets and doing nothing to earn that the return on those assets.
"lucky enough to own assets and doing nothing to earn that the return on those assets." Because CGT is not indexed against inflation you can be taxed for making a loss on those assets in real terms.
Everyone complains the tax system is unfair. The bigger injustice is taking our hard earned taxes and giving it away to those who don’t want to work. Britain has grown into a country of work shy, I want something for nothing sofa slugs. The rest of us work hard to keep them…. Get those who can work into work, then let’s have a debate on increased taxation. STOP over taxing those of us who do work….! to pay for those who choose not to work. STOP draining our social services to pay for the lazy.
Blame Thatcher. She brought in the council tax to stop us average folk having too much power. In the 80s, too many people were becoming mortgage free before they reached 40. They all had numerous properties as an extra income stream. 30 plus years later, most people will die with a mortgage. Her plan worked a treat.
Don’t forget all the other taxes we pay as well, how did the previous generations allow this.. they have allowed this take over and now we are finished.
The UK tax code should be a compulsory topic in state school curriculums. Tory politicians are practiced, professional (many are lawyers) liars. Teach students about the facts of the economic environment and their welfare so they can recognise a liar or a grifter when they see and hear them, and vote accordingly.
What's with the hatred of lawyers? All they do is try to make sure their clients are treated impartially in line with the laws of the land. Property lawyers, family lawyers, public defence defence lawyers....
That’s why Labour are ruling it out. They aren’t thinking about how to appeal to the public, they are desperately scared of turning the wealthy people who run our media and fund our politics against them. starmar is trying to sound amorphously progressive while not actually threatening the wealth and power of the people who make fortunes and gain ever more influence from the system as it’s currently run
Just teaching them where money is created would be a good start, practically no one understands Fractional Reserve Banking. How inflation is a stealth tax and the basics of the Austrian school of economics should also be on the curriculum.
I was born towards the end of WW11, spent some years teaching the tax system for the old Workers Education Association. I would simply write a few examples of earnings on the black board and apply the tax system to the numbers. The title of my class ... If folks knew how the taxation system works, there would be a revolution. So no change here then.
I remember my father complaining, when I was 5 years old, about austerity and how "we all have to tighten our belts". I am now 76! Yes nothing changes.
Young people like this give me hope for the future. Unfortunately, Britain has been governed for far too long by rich men born into generational wealth, intent on preserving their privilege. Taxing wealth is the solution to a better society, if only someone in power has the courage to do it.
A third of the population pays most of the tax with the bottom third paying no tax. There is already wealth redistribution the question is the the degree. "Taxing wealth is the solution to a better society" - not necessarily, a better solution would be for everyone to have tradeable skills and be encouraged to use them. A state of dependency is not a better society.
Some economists have projected that both the U.S. and parts of Europe could slip into a recession for a portion of 2023. A global recession, defined as a contraction in annual global per capita income, is more rare because China and emerging markets often grow faster than more developed economies. Essentially the world economy is considered to be in recession if economic growth falls behind population growth...
Emotionally-charged decisions to sell off large quantities of stocks or other investments now lock in your losses, removing any chance for future growth.
A 2022 Northwestern Mutual study found that 75% of U.S. adults admit their financial planning needs improvement. However, only 29% of Americans work with a financial advisor.
Very correct; the bear market has contributed significantly to the growth of my investment. I was able to quickly increase my portfolio from $180K to $472K. Essentially, I was just doing as my financial advisor instructed. You're good to go as long as you get competent assistance.
@@JessrobbieWould it be okay if I asked you to recommend this specific advisor or company that you used their services? Seems you've figured it all out.
@devoncampbell275: I personally have my portfolio overseen by California-based wealth advisor and fixed income strategist at that 'Britney Cohen Rose > Pro' well established and you'd find her professional bio on the net. However I suggHowever look closer to home, sometimes to move certain amount of money I am required to be in California.
This is an amazing conversation between two intelligent, articulate, and engaging young men. I was interested from start to finish. We need more people voicing sensible, reasonable and forward-thinking ideas such as this. Is it not too late to get these guys into politics? Thank you NS for this sort of content. You’ve got a new subscriber.
Thanks for bringing light to this. I was astonished that Labour didn’t make any noise about this when Starmer and Sunak were made to publish their tax returns.
0:23: 📰 The tax code in Britain is heavily skewed in favor of wealth over work, landlords over tenants, and richer homeowners over poorer ones, with almost all inherited capital being passed on untaxed. 2:45: 💰 The speaker proposes various reforms that could raise significant sums of money, such as using property tax to fund local services. 5:46: 📊 The video discusses the difference in tax rates between income and capital gains, using Rishi Sunak as an example. 8:46: 💰 The value of privately held assets in the UK has doubled since Tony Blair came into power relative to GDP, indicating a significant increase in wealth inequality. 11:29: 🗣 The speaker discusses the difference between nominal and real spending, the challenges of cutting public services, and the impact of Tony Blair on the Labour Party. 13:56: 📊 The British public is more conservative on tax policy and social issues than politicians realize. 17:08: 🤔 The speaker discusses the tough decisions that need to be made in politics, including the child benefit cap and tax burdens. Recap by Tammy AI
The mega rich are the issue, the top 1% not the others making decent income with small limited companies yet these are the ones who get hit most and pay in the most tax relatively.
"...almost all inherited capital being passed on untaxed." Classic Tricky Dicky BS we expect from Labour. Will it be policy to remove the family home provisions? After all, we can't have all those modest 3 bed semis being passed on, can we? They are usually below the threshold now. That's "untaxed inherited capital" after all. Labour has always detested the aspirational working class, so are they going to stick to type? With 75% of the land stolen from the English people 1000 years ago still in the hands of the descendants, surely it is way beyond time to rectify this injustice? No need to be punitive, just take the estates into public ownership without compensation as 'reparations' for the misdeeds of the past. Hell will freeze over first, even Benn wasn't allowed to mention it. Widow's pensions? After all, they are funded from "inherited capital" aren't they? Grandstanding? Smokescreening? Choose to suit. The country is now governed by an avowed Thatcherite, and the prospective Labour PM is an avowed Blairite, and has stuffed his future cabinet with ditto clones. Nothing at all will change that favours working people. I wonder what Penny Mordant's policies will be? The next five years are a write off already.
@Michael-ur3on the rich don’t own the majority of their wealth in person, there’s funds and firms that own their real estate, their art works, their investments, … , so their children won’t be taxed on all of the wealth. Your mums complete capital/wealth was hers, so you pay 40% on all of it.
The utilization of after-tax money and tax-free growth makes opening a Roth IRA very advantageous. Through a careful guidance of my FA, I did not pay taxes on my withdrawals of $2.86 million when I retired.
I don't regret the numerous financial mistakes I've made in the past since I've learnt from them. But the biggest one was planning my finances without consulting with a licensed financial counsel.
Indeed, I did make use of a financial counselor. As I get closer to retirement, their advice has been really helpful. I thought compound interest on index funds wouldn't be sufficient because I started late. It's amusing how I've done better than colleagues who have more years of investment experience. I've profited more than $886k tax free.
Thanks for the advice. The search for your coach was simple. I investigated her well before using her services. Considering her résumé, she appears competent.
Couple genuine questions on the council tax points. 1) won’t linking council tax to the owner rather than the occupier just result in increased rent and difficulty assigning discounts for students and single occupants? 2) if done on a % of home value how would the home value be calculated and how often would it be recalculated?
As a middle aged man who has lived through a boom and bust recession, credit crunch and austerity I’ve seen our public sector whittled away and our core services hollowed out. I’ve seen the asset-rich buy their way into a different reality, with private schools and private hospitals. The interests of the country are best served with levelling up and I’d like to see an increase in economic equality. Unearned and unequal wealth should be taxed in a meaningful way.
The tax system of Britain seems to be carefully calibrated to screw over precisely the middle classes responsible for the majority of the country's economic output, seemingly to stop them getting ideas above their station and joining the ranks of the elites by becoming properly wealthy while obfuscating its unfairness (not many people realise the income tax system has a peak marginal rate of 60%, higher than even the Scandi countries. You can thank Alastair Darling for that and the Tories for hanging on to it). My own income tax/NI burden comes out around 40%, once you start adding in the myriad stealth taxes it's more like 50% or possibly more of my earnings ending up in Treasury coffers to fund...something. Unfortunately, Mr Lambert puts a little too much faith in Labour to rebalance things. I won't be surprised if they wind up imposing a new wealth tax on the wealthy (who can quickly escape the country) while simultaneously increasing income taxes to screw over the middle class (who can't leave so easily) even more, all to fund...something.
100%. Because the ultimate goal of western elites is the stratification of us, and them. There will be no economic ladder. Simply the sewers and the ivory towers. No in between.
At 4.50 the suggestion is that every home in the country would pay halfa per cent. I agree on the principle of equity in taxation. But how is someone who lives in a one bed flat in London that isn't even nice and worth 500k going to afford the £2500. The value of the flat is not going to generate income. Would it not be a better idea to charge for services used individually?
No the idea is right, but you’ve hit the exceptions, and you’re not wrong either. This is where the gov would have to introduce council tax subsidies for low earners to property value
@@SibylleHyde I’d say if someone knowingly bought a home that they couldn’t afford to run (to claim asset rich and income poor), tough luck. If someone has inherited their property or it’s just gone up considerably in time Vs income, then fair enough.
I don't think enough is also understood as to why its a bad idea for the richest part of society to have so much money. It reduces a persons opportunity in their own career to be dropped into a world of the rich. Sure they are happy to let you work as a bartender, a cleaner or an office job but a lot of the higher paying/prestigious jobs are ring fenced for the friends and children of the wealthy.
Ring fenced jobs for the rich….! Do you know how industry works? I would suggest, higher roles are only available to them because they were afforded private education and a position in the top universities (similar to the two presenters). No business can afford to employ an under-performer, it simply does not happen. However I agree, if you are lucky enough to be afforded a private education and position in a top University, you stand a higher chance of being successful and securing a top job. This is the only privilege the wealthy have…… and is a product of an our failing education system and ridiculous university costs. Scrap university fees for British people and more have the opportunity of higher paid jobs.
Some interesting ideas. However, there are always reactions and responses to changes in tax policy. For instance moving the responsibility for council tax from the tenant to the landlord will simply see rental costs increase for the tenant and no extra tax. The idea of equalising council tax based on property prices makes complete sense (I thought that was the original intention of the tax? I maybe wrong), but would need to be accompanied by changes in central govt funding for councils. In principle, I agree with increasing wealth taxes, but it's worth pointing out that the UK already raises twice as much tax on property than the OECD average (UK 12%, OECD avg. 6%). So, a realignment, as suggested in the video, should be the focus. The other thing to point out is that the main reason, I believe, that gov'ts avoid increasing tax on wealth is because of the fear around capital flight. The UK is so reliant on private, mainly foreign investment (due to 50+ years of govt neglect, waste, and selling off of our national assets), that changes in this area would need to consider the reactions of private investors. I don't like it, but I believe this is where we are.
The higher the rent, the more valuable the property, the more it pays in tax. Simple raising rent makes it less profitable and property is forced to be less valuable. Your point is null, georgism ftw
keep in mind that you can't 'spend' the value of your house, council tax is paid from earned (and taxed) income. This creates a problem seen in the US, where homeowners house value ends up taxing them out of the ownership of their home.
A breath of fresh air. Some clear thinking and a willingness to discuss the deep rooted issues driving inequality in Britain ... and propose solutions.
The government could turn around the country overnight by shutting down the offshore tax evasion and money laundering system. If the government recovered this revenue it would fund the NHS five times over every year and lower the retirement age to fifty or double the state pension. Incredible figures!
@@tomriley5790 The OP's wants the government to raise more tax revenue. If the rich leave they won't do that. The bigger issue here's the fact our homes can be bought up by rich people who live in the UK and abroad and never left empty. 2nd homes should be taxed.
Canadian fan of the program. This was one of the best videos NS has done for youtube. Mr. Lambert took the audience through the major taxation ideas for their consideration at the next election. No other UK media outlet has done the job he did. Interviewer asked great questions. On all the other media channels, focus is often placed on comparison of UK to G7 or EU financial results. That would be the only minor criticism I have of this interview.
I'm Australian, and agree completely. This is a conversation that needs to happen in all countries with ageing populations, growing wealth inequality, and unattainable housing expenses.
I'm not always blown away by New Statesman's coverage but credit to them for doing this. I am sick to death of Labour's completely nonsensical approach to the economy going uncritiqued or somehow accepted as 'grown-up politics'. Their approach is completely inadequate for dealing with the inequality that now exists.
What's the Tories approach? Crash the economy and lose 100's of billions a year through cronyism /corruption, Brexit & political skulduggery and general managed decline of the pillars of society which are inextricably linked to the performance of the economy, then bully and steal from the poor to give to the mega wealthy who have more money than they know what to do with and through their spending patterns drive up asset prices while being taxed less than someone on 37k.
The Council Tax change proposed is stupid. Saying Londoners pay 1/10 of what Burnley people pay is twisted. The average house price in Burnley is around £130.000. The average house price is Oxford is £610,000. However for a teacher, nurse, police officer etc the salary is the same. Thus these people in Oxford, London and the South are already significantly worse off financially than people in Burnley. Why should they pay 4.5x as much Council Tax, for similar services? Crazy idea.
Incentivise Innovation, reduce the size and waste of government. Make all government activity a transparent and audited profit/cost center. Otherwise no matter how much money is raised through taxes will continue to be squandered by the governments. Every Country/State is burdened and at the mercy of governments that are only self interested and self propogating. Remove the Red tinted sunglasses. Forget party politics. The issue with the system runs much deeper.
As someone who works in the tax industry and used to journalists butchering details, I was pleasantly surprised by this. I think an important part to mention is that when they talk about council tax and CGT etc. they need to clarify that it is about the effective rate in relation the value of their home/gain rather than that the wealthy are paying less (although in some cases I’m sure they are). I might be biased as an Irishman but I think the UK could learn a bit from the Irish tax system, where although there are high income taxes, we at least have a CGT rate of 33% which cuts in very quickly. We also have a gift tax as well as an inheritance tax which drastically increases the amount of IHT that is paid. There are annual allowances (which should by right be bigger) and lifetime allowances. The gift/inheritance tax rate is 33%, not 40%. In addition to help family business and farmers pass things to the next generation there is a 90% deduction to the value of gifts. I think it would level the playing field a small bit.
Great piece! Unfortunately, many politicians on both sides of the fence are part of the "asset class" and consequently, they don't want to implement real change to taxation on assets. It's the same here in Australia, where the ALP merely tinkers at the periphery, but won't really hit the upper end of asset holders as hard as they should.
How does it make sense to base the amount council tax someone should pay depending on the value of thier house?? That like saying you should pay a higher phone bill because your shoes are expensive....
In terms of UK taxation, the REAL question should be: Why do we need such high government spending? The answer is, frankly, that too many people are living a lifestyle far above what they can afford (and what their productivity can justify, in the case of those working in low end jobs.) Too many people expect "the government" will pay for the things they want but cannot earn for themselves. As for Council Tax, the whole point is that it funds your local council - why should the people in Kensington and Chelsea pay for the profligacy of the Sheffield or Leicester councils? As for CGT, 20% is the tax on the profit from investments - the main point about investments is that they are a RISK, many people lose money with their investments (but the government doesn't send them a cheque for 20% of their losses each year!) I've no problem with the idea that taxes need to be raised to pay for services, but there needs to be a far more honest discussion about WHAT we are spending this money on, because why should "the rich" (who educated their kids privately, pay for private healthcare, pay for private childcare) pay twice for things like education, healthcare and daycare whilst at the same time being told "the rich need to pay their fair share!" The "rich" are the only net contributors to our society, and that should be honestly acknowledged, because they are also the most educated and the most mobile, so if life is made too unpleasant for them, THEY WILL LEAVE. But go ahead, encourage another brain drain and capital flight, it worked out so well for the UK the last time we had a socialist LIEbour government in the 1970s.
Until we have a transparent system our economy will never thrive. I am getting old, I can still remember Lady Docker flaunting her gold- plated Rolls Royce. This has been going on since the early 1950s. None of this would be reinvested in industry, instead swept off to off-shore tax havens. Grossly unfair to employees who generated this wealth.
You forgot to mention her private yacht. It’s been going on much further back than the 1950s and much of the wealth that built so many of our 18th and early 19th Century National Trust properties and private stately homes was derived from income from the slave trade (e.g. Capesthorne Hall in Cheshire).
i work 7 days a week pushing a hoover & mop about. I have 2 jobs one is £15 per hour & the other is £11.50 per hour. I am basically working one job to pay my tax, national insurance my rent & council tax.
The reason for the backlash against Globalisation. The income and lifestyle any job can provide a person is ceasing to be determined by the country they live in and the norms of that country, and increasingly now by the 'Global' average lifestyle for that job. Well done for being a cleaner, it's a valuable and important job, but say India with its approximately 20% of the global population. Do you think the average cleaner in India lives the lifestyle of a working class person in the UK, possibly a 'proper' place to live, schooling, public health services, possibly a car, a holiday, a smart phone a holiday? Or do you think they live in abject poverty in a slum?
As someone with an economics degree and now a retired chartered accountant, I have heard most of Harry's ideas for change before, albeit maybe in a slightly different context and sadly it seems a bit like Groundhog Day. I feel that the nut the Labour government tried to crack in the 1970s by bring in Inheritance Tax (with exemptions for family-run firms and farms) seemed a good way forward, as the rates were higher than under the previous death duties regime. This was watered down when Thatcher came to power and has never been reinstated. One issue is the number of loopholes that our complicated tax system throws up that wealthy people can pay accountants to exploit on their behalf. We also need to work out a better way of stopping people moving wealth overseas (except for genuine investment) and that may mean punitive taxes when the money is repatriated. We also need to have a tax that is more akin to Capital Gains Tax than Stamp Duty when people move house. That needs a bit of fine tuning to avoid innocent people being hammered but successive policies have just resulted in house prices escalating wildly in my lifetime to the point where young people can't expect to own property or get a mortgage until they are middle-aged. I could go on but the more I think about the more I realise that the UK is being governed by people who are pandering to a small proportion of the population and the rest just have to lump it.
As someone who is a Qualified UK tax advisor the first sentence is laughable. Favours the landlord over the tenant?! I have had clients who, because of tax, are better off financially to leave their property completely vacant than to let it out. If you want to opine on Tax then get at least one qualification in it and try again.
@@physiocrat7143everyone benefits from them when they happen. When they don’t or fall through there is capital loss too and that benefits those looking to upsize or purchase property. Also that’s nothing to do with taxation?
@@Ben_1993 Everyone does not benefit from them equally. The only people who benefit from the Elizabeth Line are those who can use the service. Nobody in Sunderland gets any benefit. In the end, the benefit goes to owners of property along the route who have made a killing and can charge higher rents to tenants. The line has brought up property values in the previously depressed Woolwich area and along the Thames Valley, which now enjoys direct access to Central London. London Overground did the same thing for parts of Lewisham and Southwark. The Docklands Light Railway extension to Lewisham also gave property prices a boost. Docklands could not have happened without the Jubilee Line Extension to Canary Wharf and Stratford. London landowners get all the gravy ladled out and paid for by the taxpayers of the whole country. This has everything to do with taxation.
@@physiocrat7143and those in the South East pay far more tax than the rest of the country. Also Londoners use infrastructure far more than anywhere else in the UK. Bus or Tube everyday multiple times. In regional towns everyone drives. Do you have proof that tax payers money is disproportionately redistributed to the south east? No it has everything to do with spending and nothing to do with taxation.
@@Ben_1993 London sucks in wealth created in the rest of the country through the tax and financial systems which are concentrated there. Consequently, it appears that London and the South East are paying a disproportionately large share of the national tax burden. However, the benefits largely accrue to owners of land as they are reflected in commercial and residential rents and property prices, which is the point not very well made in the video. But matters are worse than that. Away from London and the South East, there are many locations where economic activity would be viable in the absence of tax. This gives rise to welfare dependency which is an unnecessary burden on the state. It also leads to migration and added costs for infrastructure. As a qualified tax expert you are no doubt aware of "tax incidence"; the burden of taxes nominally paid by employees eg PAYE Income Tax and NI falls on employers and is part of labour costs. The burden of VAT is substantially on sellers since the tax is partially absorbed so as to maintain volumes of sales. The business rate is damaging due to it being based on out of date rental values which may have dropped since the assessments were made. The entire tax system is a complete mess. If the aim was to do as much damage as possible, then it could be counted as a success. The UK is by no means the worst country. Germany and Sweden probably win the booby prizes.
I completely agree that the taxation system needs to change as Harry explains, but also the loopholes that enable the super rich to move their assets offshore need to be addressed. Also, wealth inequality has increased since the early 80's (neoliberalism). I think that there is a real appetite for change e.g. public ownership of national infrastructure seems to becoming more popular. Water companies pumping sewage into our rivers whilst paying huge dividends, or train companies subsidised by the tax payer running a mediocre service whilst paying billions to shareholders make no sense.
I do despair when people moan about dividend payments to share holders. People have to remember that pension funds fund pension payments via dividend payments. Anybody who has a pension private or workplace is an indirect shareholder's and receives dividend payments indirectly via the value of their pension. What should be taught in school is how to buy shares and create a passive income. School does not teach how money works and how to create wealth. I am sure it would catch the imagination of many kids who under achieve, who see no way but to stay poor working in most jobs. Their ambition becomes to join a gang and make easy money selling drugs. The wealthy do not want the state educated children to understand how money works. They want to keep that privilege for their own children. I talk to many people about share ownership and building a passive income. Their answer is that you understand that, I don't. The reason they don't understand share ownership is because they were never taught how money works in school. They learn how to get a credit card but are not taught how to use and manage credit cards and how to make credit work for them. I hardly buy everything outright with my capital, I use interest-free credit to pay for nearly everything and then use my capital to work for me. Share ownership is not about a quick buck but a long term investments to build dividend payments for later in life and achieve financial security.
@@michaeloconnor9465 I agree, Knowledge of the advantages of share ownership (which is true public ownership) is hard to come by in state schools and it is only when you get to university that you meet people who can help. I suggest people contact the share foundation (Gavin Oldham) who can help.
Can you elaborate on the loopholes you describe? Curious to know, if you were moving abroad (either to retire or for a job opportunity), would you be happy to have the value of your assets (including savings and house sale proceeds) taxed on exit?
The wealthy should have the freedom to move their assets offshore, as those assets belong to them. In a world that values freedom, individuals should have the right to relocate if their current residence doesn't align with their beliefs.
All tax systems encourage you to use the law to your advantage. Tax system aims to encourage economic activity. The average working person can reduce the tax they pay by paying into their pension more, investing into S&S ISA that is free from tax, and there are lots of ways to reduce your tax burden legally as a ltd company. The average person can do all these things.
In London, most working people are TENANTS who do not own the property that they’re living in. If you raise the council tax in London, it’s the poor and struggling tenants who will have to pay, not the landlords.
With the English political duopoly system (Labour vs Conservative) it is virtually impossible to change the status quo. It requires a system with many different political parties, each of which has a main topic on the program (e.g. tax). And where the 'tax party' in a coalition government can get its policy through. Other parties with other topics on the program can get their policy through. This is how a society changes for the better. 😉
Your solution shows that PR is a pre-requisite - we can only hope that reform of the Lords with a PR elected second assembly takes away the fear of change for the governing assembly
Does it work though? a brief look at some of the multi party setups around the world shows lots of governments that simply cant get anything done due to lack of consensus or when they do reach major decisions its often done at the price of bold change where interest groups use their bargaining power to water down or change the policy or program to their own benefit not necessarily to the betterment of those its meant to serve.. I don't disagree that what we have now is a catastrophic mess for a whole host of reasons, but one thing a single party majority can get you is decisive action, where the issue then becomes putting the right people in power that align with the actual needs and wants of the populous, something we've soundly failed at for decades. TL/DR Coalition rule can help stop policy's you don't want being rammed through, but it does so at the cost of holding back policy that you do want to see come to pass in a timely fashion...
Sadly, that would require a better form of democracy than currently exists, anywhere in the world. Most countries of the world have a duopoly system, even if it was not intended to be, simply because most people in the democracy are "centrists", therefore most political parties straddle that "centrist" line, with occasional periods of extremes. This inevitably leads to a left of centre party, and a right of centre party, with additional minority parties usually campaigning on a single issue, such as the Green Party here in the UK. The main difference here in the UK is that we only have one party on the right, and many parties on the left, therefore the right leaning party tends to win more elections, as the left leaning parties are contesting with each other for their share of the vote. I understand that there are countries which have a PR type system, but most of those are still dominated by one of two parties opposed to each other.
As long it's fair for both sides poor and rich. Having capital gains tax almost half the percentage of income tax is a great example of the system being fundamentally broken.
Look what happened to Corbyn, the public rather have BoJo than any radical shift in tax structure and infrastructure spend. We’re getting what we voted for, not sure why people are moaning.
Excellent interview. Refreshing to have two young guys calmly point out the injustices of the UK tax system without resorting to accusatory or emotive language. We need calm heads, analytical minds to get us out of this mess.
Having poorer areas pay less council tax and richer areas pay more would just mean that the poor areas would get less local government services, wouldn't it? I lived in the USA and one of the deep deep inequities in the USA is that schools are funded by local property tax. So poor areas have the worst schools and that keeps those areas poor. This would do the same thing but with social care, homelessness prevention, local leisure services, adult education, the arts and music, children's and youth services, etc etc.
The central government in the UK essentially regulates and controls the council budgets and already effectively redistributes the funding. It's a different system from the US (which itself varies at the state level). So it's already being centrally managed, it's really just where you turn the dial...
Also lived in the US. The local nature of property taxes is only one of the major issues with it. It's a tax on what's is most people largest none liquid asset, that they have no control over it's value or ability sell a fraction of the asset to cover the taxes. So what happens is people are priced out of there own homes, because they buy a cheap house, there is a housing boom and they can no longer afford the tax bill. There left with no choice but to sell and relocate to a cheaper area, as they don't have the income to cover the tax. Then there's the issue that taxing someone on the value of there property, requires defining the value of that property. The US local authorities spend insane amounts of money doing this yearly and basically every property owner argues and fight the value. Which is just a massive waste of time and money. It's just a very stupid way to tax people. The UK council tax is much more sensible system and it would be much better to adjust that, add more bands, adjust how properties are assigned to bands, making the band pricing more reflective of the local situation etc etc. Than go to the regressive and flawed US style system.
The U.S is effectively a third world country. For every billionaire there are thousands of people living on the streets in defacto refugee camps. They are the perfect example of inequality.
My only concern with the normalizing of Council Tax to 0.5% is that you'd end up with the same problems as the American schooling system. If the Council halves the tax rate but is a higher-need area, then the area will suffer with a reduced tax take. I assume, therefore, that such a proposal would involve some kind of re-balancing of incomes across councils. It might have been useful to elaborate on that a bit more.
Rebalancing council rates would have a lot of effects. Wages can be lower if rates are lower. There could be more disparity in purchases power between authorities than there already is. Property values are also very dynamic change the upkeep costs substantially and prices will fly off in unpredictable directions.
Completely agree. Avg house price in Burnley is 133k. .5% is around £600 p/a. London’s average is £750k, so .5% is £3750. If London are paying 6x the same CT, how can Burnley expect the same standard of services.
If you follow the American economy,the old adage of they sneeze,we catch a cold,is very pertinent,American property taxes are out of control,uk council tax,potentially rising too unaffordable levels.
Unfair taxes for me are 1. Inheritance tax, my father worked hard all his life, lived a meagre existence hence built up some savings to have a good part of it taken away by IHT. He has already paid tax on his earnings, but a double whammy to have it taxed again. 2. Tax on interest on savings previously taxed. The country is in dire straights financially due to covid, green policies and the fact that 50% of the population are net drains , not contributors to the country. I don't see an easy answer, taxes are unfair undesirable but a necessity.
I notice that socialists always consider inheritance as unfair for the people receiving it and ignore the rights of people giving it. Yes, if you look at the stats, about a third of the population pay most of the taxes and the bottom third none at all.
Me and the Mrs are in that awful 'just in the 40%' tax bracket. It's an absolute aspiration killer, because you've either gotta smash through it and earn a lot more, and or its really not worth bothering with. And that's where we are at. Why take a promotion with more work, stress, etc. We used to invest money but why risk it when if you dare to make a bit they will hammer you for 40% of tax. Why put in some overtime at work to give half of it to the government. Why try and accumulate any wealth to get smashed with a inheritance tax bill?
This problem of stepped level taxation affects aspiration and survival for both personal situations and business . Three times I have grown a small retail business, only to find the vat threshold unconquerable. Suddenly reaching a stage where 12% of your turnover becomes tax ( 20% less any input tax) means that what used to be your earnings just disappears overnight. I agree that additional taxing of assets rather than taxing work seems more sustainable.
That's not how the UK tax works. You'll only pay 40% on the amount above the threshold, not the total value. You'll still be earning more than someone in the band below you. Saying otherwise is just a lie, and serves the rich's interests.
Indeed these young guys would further tax your hard worked for investments and responsibilities taken. You do the simple work / life balance calculations and decide not to improve your positions. That’s the rub, tax the risk takers and responsible and you kill the economic drivers. IMHO
Ye i stopped paying taxes years ago. I hate thus world. I had to escape, im living in my van off my own back self reliant and loving life in freedom and sticking one up at the government. Im working part time and enjoying nature and getting to know my true spirit. Lets stand together and show our greedy governing powers we will not let them scre us anymore. Stand up for ourselves, dont let fear rule you. We are amazing qnd have such powers inside.
I think we are too obsessed about the economy crashing. In the right sense, the economy never crashes. It just undergoes cycles, and almost always recovers. So I really don't care what the predictions are. I just want to grow my investment portfolio. I read that lots of folks are making multi-figures as incomes despite the downturn. Any tips on how to make substantial progress in earning?
Nobody knows anything! You need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin, while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.
But the professionals are still crushing it right now because they have both the necessary approach to pull off a profit in the market plus access to insider market knowledge that isn’t made public.
Exactly why i enjoy market decisions being guided by a professional, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk management and market experience, been using the expertise and guidance of John Desmond Heppolette, for over 5years+ and I've netted over $3million in that time frame..
I've shuffled through a few financial advisor in the past, but settled with John Desmond Heppolette. The strategy he use is recession-proof, more specifically profit-oriented, and most likely, you'd find his basic info on the net, he's a renowned advisor.
Thanks for the information! I just discovered his exceptional resume when I made a research of his full names online. He appears knowledgeable and well accredited. I drop him a message and book a call session with him!
The problem we have in the UK is compound taxation. Based upon your proposal, its tax wealth instead of income, ok fair enough, but what about all the other taxes? Council Tax, Road Tax, Stamp Duty, Duty on Cigarettes and Alcohol etc. What we need to do is simplify the Tax System so people understand their total tax up front, with no hidden taxes, and then appreciate the absolute waste in Government. If we had a simpler tax system for Business & Income/wealth, that would make more sense.
Agree , we were supposed to abolish V A T when we left the E U , seems the average people haven't benefitted from either being a member of the E U or being out of it , when we were in we didn't have much of a say , but we payed the second largest amount in , now were out everything has gone up even more , really can't win .
There’s a thing called the Overton window which restricts how fast and how radical changes can be. Any tax change creates winners and losers so it’s very dangerous for a government to stray too far too fast from what has already been normalised. Liz Truss discovered the Overton window in her brief tenure of No 10.
Yes but no but. You can consider them stealth taxes, and sometimes they are, but why should I pay the same amount of fuel duty [edit: should read 'Vehicle Excise Duty' not 'fuel duty'] on the 5000 miles I drive for work a year as someone who drives 20000 miles a year when I don't pollute and wear out the road as much? Why should I pay alcohol tax for alcohol I don't drink etc etc? The point of some taxes is that they help encourage other behaviour, or raise money which could be used (note I said 'could') be used to mitigate the negative effect of certain actions. Alcohol causes cancer. Smoking causes cancer. Neither have any real health benefits. Is it a good idea to use tax to try to make them less affordable? Should tobacco taxes be used directly to help improve certain NHS departments for those affected? But what if giving up smoking and drinking is easier for the privileged among us and does it become a tax on the poor? Hmm. This whole redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I thought, said Dennis Moore.
This is wild! There’s barely a difference between torries and so called labour, to hell with them all. It’s the perfect time for a party who actually care about the people to emerge
In a first past the post system, your best option is to support the least worst viable option. Anything else just helps the worst viable option. If you want to support more nuanced parties (rather than broad church parties like Torys and Labour) and expect them to have any power, then you need proportional representation first.
Your point on basing council tax on property value has 2 key floors: 1: Who decides the property value? The true value of the property is only decided at the point in which it is sold. I think its unfair to be told the estimated value of the property by a third party council, bank, model or otherwise, its open to manipulation and adds unnecessary effort 2: A person on realises the increase in the value of their property at the point of sale. Although you gave examples to suit your point of Burnley paying less and Kensington & Chelsea paying more I Imagine there will be people that can't afford their increased council tax
Whilst moving Council Tax away from the tennant and onto the owner sounds like a good idea, there's not really anything to stop a landlord from raising the rent further to 'cover the cost' of that additional fee.
Of course - this would happen to start with but the purpose is that homeowners pay for houses regardless of occupancy. If you have no tenants nobody is paying that tax today. If instead the landlord is on the hook regardless of if they have a tenant, they have greater incentive to fill the house, which means they have to compete harder for getting a tenant quicker and means there is greater supply, lowering costs overall (and giving local authorities more funding from the revenue raised on empty properties)
Basically agree with you but the 2 aren't directly related. The rent is determined by supply and demand. With increased costs Landlords would attempt to recover them but the market decides if they can. Where they can't some would be driven out of the market, increasing rents until there is a new equilibrium. Overall makes little difference.
No just the tories giving big tax cuts for big corporate businesses and the wealthy and higher payed since 2010, and at the exact same time slashing funding in real terms adjusted for inflation for all public services to its lowest levels in in well over 40 yrs or more. And screwing the rest of us basic rate tax payers etc
As a European living in this country for over a decade I can't get my head around how unequal this country is in the matter of taxes and privileges for wealthy nobility lords... Upper class in general. It's crazy.
i know its shocking how 10% of adults have never worked and nearly a third of adults earn less than the taxable minimum, meaning nearly half of the adult population don't pay income tax. it is disgusting how these poor people don't pay income tax like the rest of us. oh wait you probably meant it was unequal somehow the other way around.
Wodelouse… taking your comment seriously, I’m afraid we need people who have the balls to get off their arses and take risks, and why shouldn’t an investment (and risk) be taxed at a lower figure. We live in a nanny state and most people expect the state to pay for them, so this encourages ‘why work mentality’ I’ve been self employed all my life and have worked through sweat and worry, and now I’m retired and can’t enjoy my life, but the socialist say tax that capitalist pig, why should he be wealthy while I’ve sat on my arse and done f..k all with my life. We need rich people, if not, go and live in China and all live the same
Some good points in the video, but disappointed that there wasn't any mention of the potential for a Land Value Tax. It's the most effective form of wealth tax, since it can't be dodged by simply moving the taxed assets abroad - land can't just be moved away. It should replace any property tax because it doesn't discourage the development of buildings, rather the only thing it discourages is speculation/ land hoarding, since sitting on an empty home or lot and profiting from its future sale wouldn't be viable if you had to pay a big tax on it. For this reason it would also open up the current supply of housing somewhat (although probably not enough to fully solve the housing crisis, it would help). Under a 100% LVT, landlords would only profit from the quality of service they provide to tenants, rather than also making unearned money from the value of the land they own. They would not be able to pass the LVT on to renters because they already charge what the market can sustain - people can't pay any more for the same house/flat. Farmers wouldn't be affected because a square foot of farmland would have a much lower valuation than a square foot of land in a city. The only tricky part of this tax would be continuously reassessing the unimproved value of land, but it's done in other countries where this tax exists like Denmark and Estonia (though some sort of market-based auction solution might be preferable). Overall I wish there was more talk in Labour circles about conducting potential trials of this, because if found to work it would really improve the efficiency and progressiveness of taxation in the country at time when tax reform is desperately needed, as the video pointed out. And something like this could easily find support from all corners of the electorate, as it both promotes more productivity *and* is a plain fair and progressive tax. Politicians would just have to be explicitly clear in highlighting how homeowners would be protected, since house prices would fall due to the sale price of the land the house is on falling (because it'd be taxed).
Would this exclude the Royalty? perhaps, the new Statesman does not talk about this because it would eventually have to answer hard questions on how much acreage the royalty squats on.
Excellent video with an intelligent approach to the UK's grossly unfair tax system. However, I have two quibbles:- 1. Only the top 1% pay capital gains tax? I have had to pay that on occasion yet my accumulated wealth and income are modest by most people's standards. 2. Understanding the tax code system would make the scales fall ftom people's eyes? Am I missing something here? Are we talking about the PAYE tax codes? Or have I jumped to a wrong conclusion? Because I don't think a better understanding of how PAYE tax codes work will lead people to demand a shift to taxing asset wealth and away from income.
That's THE most sensible thing anyone has said to me about taxation in the last twenty years. Shame it will require someone with genuine leadership skills to enact it and so I suspect we shall continue on a slow managed decline for the next twenty years.
Don't agree, we should have a basic 15 percent tax of everyone companies and employees and business owners with no expenses aloud and government should not be aloud to spend more that. 3 percent over GDP
Brilliant. This should be shown to schools, colleges and Universities so that those entering the real world can understand how the tax game is currently played.
Here is why I’m against any new taxes despite not being wealthy. It ALWAYS starts off as a tax on the ‘rich’ yet years later ends up as a tax on the average person. Show me one example where this is not the case.
If the "average person" makes substantial income from their invested wealth, then I don't see a problem with that. It's a capital gains tax, it should apply equally. It's just that it shouldn't be taxed less than working for a living. Tax income as income.
Nobody is talking about new taxes, it's about changing the rates for existing taxes so that the wealthy pay more. There has been an asset boom over that last few years and much of the wealth has gone to people with assets from people who work.
@antonymossop3135 yes and no. If you have a salary you get that every month that you are employed If you invest anything the upside potential is very variable so you au least need a proper offset in place for when you score a loss.
This is such a lame view of capital gains. In an scenario of increased global mobility, it is easy for capital to move out of the country. Capitalists drive this economy. Here I refer to data not some opinion based on emotions. I say CGT should be lowered to attract capital and drive the economy further. People are better off paying taxes in a growing economy. Paying higher tax on a higher income is better than paying lower tax in an economy in shambles
I pay 55% overall, due to higher rate tax, NI, student loans. Granted, I am on a good salary. But I still have to pay £10k+ to bring my wife in the UK and we get no adequate healthcare for the tax we pay, plus she's entitled to 0 public funds if we get hit by a bus. Absolute shame.
Fantastic conversation. All the points discussed chimed with me. We must tax the wealth and asset class to redistribute more fairly. This will restart economic growth. You have a new subscriber
The problem is, saying rich people like Sunak who "only" paid less as a percentage, is that he would have paid something like £1m in taxes last year. And the argument seems to be, from people who may have paid £10,000, this isn't enough. How is this a fair argument? Because the other thing is, if you tax rich people too much, they just move away to a new tax domicile, and that's the end of that. Instead of getting the £1m from Sunak, you get nothing. And what's worse, is that the hole left by that, will then have to be made up by whoever is left. You fundamentally need to encourage entrepreneurship, and aspiration. Allow people to actually keep the majority of what they make, otherwise they'll just go somewhere else and make their money there, and pay less taxes wherever else they choose to go. This discussion (as much of it as I could stomach, anyway) doesn't pay any attention to the fact that the world exists outside the UK's borders, and that people can move to another country easily, particularly if they are wealthy. This would seem to be a very, very, simplistic argument.
I think most of the comments made , are sensible and would make a massive difference to our Country if they was put in to action now I think it would help everyone
one of the biggest issues with tax in the UK is that is just not thought about. No-one has to do their taxes unlike a lot of countries where submitting your taxes for the year is an actual thing, where you do it yourself or have a tax accountant do it for you when open the door for understand what you can and can't achieve within the tax law. UK has none of that.
I really applaud this, I've been saying this myself. But UK politicians will not shift the tax emphasis to wealth over income until the USA does it first, which it is not doing. Also, as highlighted, the wealthy "Rishi Sunaks" will not tax themselves. Politicians will talk about "levelling up" all day long, but the reality is they have worked hard to centralize wealth and power away and out of the hands of ordinary working people. They have "hijacked" society for the wealthy. This is a political choice. They can't even "future fake" us now due to poor economic growth, but they have placed working people into a state of endless austerity through their non-progressive taxation system.
As commented by kevoreilly above, such taxes have existed widely in the U.S. since ever. It's the U.K. voters who choke on this, not Americans. What many counties in the U.S. call "property tax" is roughly a kind of Land Value Tax - which Brit voters don't understand but hate anyway.
The working class pay a lot of their meagre earnings in taxes & get very little back in the way of public services while the better off get loopholes to avoid paying taxes on the huge sums they make from taxpayers subsidising the companies they have shares in, it's the Tory way of running things, it suits them just fine & that's exactly how they intend to keep it.
France still hasn’t paid a penny on its WWI loans to Treasury since 1931. The debt is somewhere near a trillion now. Why not call the debt in to give some relief to taxpayers?
This starts on the false premise that the rich barely pay any tax and the poor pay the lion's share, which is the opposite of reality. The top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues. Now if 1 person owns a 3 bed semi in an outer suburb of Liverpool and another a 3 bed semi in central London, the council tax paid on each respectively will be similar, yet a much higher percentage of the Liverpool house's value. There is nothing fundamentally unfair about that, as both would be costing their councils in services, a similar amount. By that point under 5 minutes in, I'd heard more than enough bollocks to continue.
I live and pay taxes in the US. The same inequity applies: the higher tax rate on work, as opposed to the lower tax rate on investment income (capital gains). You made the problem very clear. Thank you.
Watch next: “Are they stupid?!” - Liz Truss economics explained th-cam.com/video/hcLw8cT5Lgs/w-d-xo.html
Taxes * Income Tax * Capital Gains Tax * National Insurance * VAT * Council Tax * Corporation Tax * Dividend Tax * Bank payroll Tax * Petroleum Revenue Tax * Fuel Duties * Vehicle Tax - VED * SORN - Vehicles parked off road * Vehicle Registration * Vehicle MOT * Inheritance Tax * Stamp Duty * Tobacco Duties * Spirits Duties * Beer Duties * Wines Duties * Cider Duties * Betting & Gaming Duties * Air Passenger Duty * Insurance Premium Tax * Landfill Tax * Climate Change Levy * Aggregates Tax * Congestion Charge * ULEZ Stealth Taxes * Income Tax Threshold Freezes * Personal Savings Interest Threshold * Lifetime Allowance on Pensions * Parking Fines * Speeding Fines * Box Junction Fines * LTN Fines * AI Cameras.
Where does it say in law that you have to pay it please
I plan on leaving the UK after living here 42 years. I have had enough of this countries rule, government and the whole lot!
I left during the thatcher years , came to Canada and never looked back
Where we going i’m coming with you.
Bingo-that really is the answer history tells us this-Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire-excessive taxes eventually kill your country bc wealthy can leave so economy of country falls
Forget Canada and their stupid Trudeau. Canadians are moving to America. We’d love to show you what financial freedom looks like.
You wouldn't want to move to New Zealand by any chance? If you do things are arguably a lot worse. We have become locked into Neoliberalism since 1984 and one of the parties (the ACT Party) was born out of the ashes of a betraying Labour Party that preceded it and we had an even worse government that followed - a National government with Ruth Richardson as Finance Minister where neoliberalism was expressed in an even more extreme and cruel way. She was so awful that not even Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, could stomach her any longer and sacked her.
This is when our society became really unequal, but we had a voting system (MMP) that locked in a situation of political timidity that panders to the middle, swinging voters so nothing ever gets done, except for the benefit of the rich and so-called middle voters whose interests are purely for themselves and what they can get out of the government's so-called promises.
The latest government has a National prime minister who was CEO of Air New Zealand and wants to run the government along corporate lines. National has two coalition partners who claim to have a mandate for their vile policies, including trashing the environment and destroying what's left of out natural biodiversity for so-called development projects (chosen by three undemocratic ministers) including mining, and more roads at the expense of rail, coastal shipping, cycling and walking - all at the expense of managing CO2 emissions and consequent global warming. They're also taking an axe to the health system, social welfare, all for protecting the interests of the wealthy. If they have a plan for anything, they haven't communicated it to long-suffering New Zealanders. They're New Zealand's answer to Boeing, but we can only hope that either they develop some sense and compassion or they're voted out as a one-term government. The two coalition partners (ACT and New Zealand First) claim to have been given a mandate to put forward their insane and insulting policies that retraumatises Maori in a racist and neo-colonial fit of pique by the ACT leader, but, between them, they only got around 17% of the vote, compared with the more left wing Green Party that got over 13% alone. Their claim to have a mandate is hardly credible and they are the tail of a very small chihuahua wagging a large St Bernard, nevertheless they hold the balance of power. All three coalition partners are New Zealand's political answer to Boeing and just as incompetent and, dare I say, corrupt.
It is hard to believe that the British Tories are any worse than what we have here, but hearing Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg speak I'm hardly filled with confidence. It seems as if it's Prince Andrew running the country and determining policy.
I would argue that this tax system is one of the reasons we have low economic growth because it doesn’t encourage us to be productive. Why would anyone with lots of money invest in new factories and technologies when they can buy and sell assets, such as property, which will earn more money than working on something that improves the countries ability/productivity in producing something like a good or service?
Not to mention, when you earn over £50k a year, you are considered to be "rich," and half of everything over that goes to the government.
Meanwhile, buying a modest house in London would cost you £600k minimum.
It demotivates work and actually encourages people to go on the dole.
You have hit the mail on the head. Investing in production, through company shares has a level of risk which is far greater than teh risk involved in owning property. So house prices rise, benefiting existing owners, and companies find themselves borrowing at terms which are difficult to pay.
Harry Lambert suggests we take money from those who have acquired more and give it to those have less. Who would work harder knowing they will have to hand it over to those that work less?
@@A190xx If I have interpreted your point correctly, it depends on how it's acquired and then depends on where it goes. If it's simply tax the rich more and then hand it out in 'out of work' benefits then i agree, it stops aspiration of those who strive as they climb into greater wealth. If you tax capital gains the same as you would income, then invest that into proper healthcare, education, transport and improving deprived areas then it creates more options for those less well off to become strivers themselves. The current tax situation perpetuates inequality of choice and options available. Society can't help those who won't help themselves, but it should at least provide help to those who choose to do so. I can't see the current system doing that and we need money to help them.
I am particularly upset as high earner. I just worked over a year to earn a significant bonus. The tax burden is so high, it prevents me or anyone from ever becoming wealthy as an employee. The only path to true wealth is via the limited company/corporation.
Ir35 destroyed a lot of workers. Tax is 2 high.. not worth working, let others pay the tax for benefits.. everyone should do it, make life a lot less stressful.
Don't forget trusts and offshoring, which is where most of the country's hidden wealth and corruption, centered in the City of London, right under our very noses.
It's true. Work is taxed much more highly compared to income from property.
@@johntbaxter Actually no. When I was working my marginal tax rate was 48%. Now that I live of capital gains it's 10% when I sell assets.
For profit corporation of the treasury is double-dealing. Tricking natural, living breathing men / women workers into accepting imposed liability to pay, on the part of a 'person' - a legal fiction corporate entity. But you are not liable, being not a "person". Or body of "persons" corporate or un incorporate. However, the choice is a personal one. But keep feeding the cash hungry monster and it will devour you all. It is following the WEF-led plan of you all owing NOTHING - not even the work you do; and being happy about it. Caveat emptor.
The irony that an ad popped up halfway through this video claiming you can make 1 million tax free through commercial property
Ads aren’t random. Maybe you’re interested in taxes, so it targets you. But I swear you get ads that are deliberately the opposite of what you are watching. So you watch something on climate and get an oil company ad, or about the housing crisis and get a passive income guru ad. My theory is that it is deliberate and the purpose is to inject a counter narrative, or seed of doubt, that spoils the message you are listening to
I love that these corrupt politicians are being found out by these intelligent people. People are finally awakening to these corrupt and illegal schemes that is being imposed on them.
"Finally waking up", what have they been doing to date to just be waking up? Partying? Pathetic..🙄
Sounds like bunch of populistic leftie propoganda.
Wealth tax is what it is. You'll try to tax these people with higher taxes they'll move the money out and you'll get nothing. For them it's easier to move capital then for regular people.
Many have tried and failed.
There has to be another solution than take from rich give to the poor. Never worked and never will.
Great comment more and more citizens of the U.K. are understanding how deeply corrupt our politicians are. Slowly but surely more of the corruption will be exposed
@@nyakwarObat😂😂
The tax scheme is as old as the hills.
And politicians are all corrupt. All the decent people are killed and murdered.
As a business owner I've reached a point where I now see little to no value in investing further in my own business. Any potential increase in returns is so punitively taxed that it's no longer attractive in any way shape or form. The bigger problem I see is there's no viable alternative to the shambles we currently have in power. We have two major political parties that are simply varying degrees of right with seemingly nothing new on offer. I'm in my 50's and I've never before reached a point where I don't feel there is a party who I feel inclined to support. I genuinely see no viable party right now.
Agree 👍🏼
nothing wrong with having a small business. everynoe nowadays wants to own the world ;)
It’s a sell out country. Chaos/ civil turmoil shortly
Do what other corporations do - take on lots of debt so you in theory have zero profits whilst paying yourself big dividends.
@@PazLeBonno not everyone wants to “own the world”. Not even the top 10% want to own the world. You only need an income of £60k to be in the top 10%. And the top 1% only earn £173k per year. Sounds a lot I know, and I wish that was me… but even that is not a tremendous amount of money.
No it’s only about one or two dozen people in total who really want to “own the world”. Most people just want to own a decent home, have a nice car, go on holiday every year and be able to retire without worrying. The top 1% are still just small fry’s.
Cut budget of prisons: more drugs and overfull prisons.
Cut budget to rebuild schools: pupils cannot attend crumbling schools.
Cut budgets to Councils: roads are terrible, councils going bust, poor social services, poor children's services.
The list of years of cutting budgets is our country becoming crap.
The issue is where did the money flow? The video suggests just the asset rich got wealthier.
Legalise and tax cannabis. Less for police to deal with, and more tax income.
Spend it all on renewable generation to reduce energy costs
To be fair my person opinion is that if you are an adult you should be able to put whatever you want in your own body and we should be legalizing and taxing drugs because all drug criminalization does is create a revenue stream for criminals, costs police time and tax payer money locking people away, and I mean all drugs. This would need to come with labelling to be like this can cause X, Y and Z and for drugs that do cause aggression-which I would like to point out alcohol is worse than most illicit drugs when it comes to that-a special that this drug is known to cause excess aggressive tendencies and that if you commit a violent crime while under it's influence you will be subject to forced rehab and a longer jail sentence.
This is not to actually stop people committing violent crimes while under the influence, it's cautionary so that people are less likely to take it in the first place and if they do they take precessions so they can't hurt anyone else before they take it.
Also you would be taking a chunk of that tax money from the sale of drugs and putting it into rehabilitation clinics and public awareness of drugs and legalization has been shown to decrease the rate at which people take drugs, almost eliminate overdosing, cutting off a funding source for organized crime and the rest of the supply chain for the illicit production and distribution of illegal drugs and putting it in the hands of people above board which will bluster the economy.
There is nothing but up sides for legalization as long as you enable good quality treatment for addiction.
HSBC is people's banks
My energy company sends me a bill which say that all of the energy I use is from 100% renewable sources, but it is no cheaper than anyone else’s.
It is has always amazed me that we tax actual work progressively at 20%, 40% and 45% but capitals gains tax is lower at 10% and 20% (18% and 28% for residential property). So you literally get taxed more for producing goods and services and contributing to the economy than being lucky enough to own assets and doing nothing to earn that the return on those assets.
And of course there is National insurance that stops at a certain level that never seems to be updated.
"lucky enough to own assets and doing nothing to earn that the return on those assets."
Because CGT is not indexed against inflation you can be taxed for making a loss on those assets in real terms.
When you include NI the real tax rates are 32%,42%.
@@NorthDownReader income is not indexed against inflation either.
CGT is lower because rich people run the country.
Gordon Brown changed the system.
Blue Labour.
You guys are men after my own heart. You've outlined how corrupt and unfair the tax system is in this country
The tax system is unfair when most people are on 16hr contracts they pay nothing in you need to get people working and paying in.
Correct and yet we need to reform the tax system. How do you start when it the system is set up to benefit the ultra rich
Everyone complains the tax system is unfair. The bigger injustice is taking our hard earned taxes and giving it away to those who don’t want to work. Britain has grown into a country of work shy, I want something for nothing sofa slugs.
The rest of us work hard to keep them…. Get those who can work into work, then let’s have a debate on increased taxation. STOP over taxing those of us who do work….! to pay for those who choose not to work. STOP draining our social services to pay for the lazy.
Taxes
* Income Tax
* Capital Gains Tax
* National Insurance
* VAT
* Council Tax
* Corporation Tax
* Dividend Tax
* Bank payroll Tax
* Petroleum Revenue Tax
* Fuel Duties
* Vehicle Tax - VED
* SORN - Vehicles parked off road
* Vehicle Registration
* Vehicle MOT
* Inheritance Tax
* Stamp Duty
* Tobacco Duties
* Spirits Duties
* Beer Duties
* Wines Duties
* Cider Duties
* Betting & Gaming Duties
* Air Passenger Duty
* Insurance Premium Tax
* Landfill Tax
* Climate Change Levy
* Aggregates Tax
* Congestion Charge
* ULEZ
Stealth Taxes
* Income Tax Threshold Freezes
* Personal Savings Interest Threshold
* Lifetime Allowance on Pensions
* Parking Fines
* Speeding Fines
* Box Junction Fines
* LTN Fines
* AI Cameras
I’m 18 right now and I’m terrified
😂 you forgot gambling duty 😂
@@SibylleHyde 🤣
It’s number 22 on the list but thanks 🙏🏼 😀
Oops
And many more😵💫
Would agree , I earn about £1300 after tax per month my council tax is £1260 per year.
Its a big chunk of my already taxed pay.
Blame Thatcher. She brought in the council tax to stop us average folk having too much power.
In the 80s, too many people were becoming mortgage free before they reached 40. They all had numerous properties as an extra income stream.
30 plus years later, most people will die with a mortgage. Her plan worked a treat.
In Italy, I was paying €45 per year on council tax.
Don’t forget all the other taxes we pay as well, how did the previous generations allow this.. they have allowed this take over and now we are finished.
Ever asked your self where that goes?
The UK tax code should be a compulsory topic in state school curriculums. Tory politicians are practiced, professional (many are lawyers) liars. Teach students about the facts of the economic environment and their welfare so they can recognise a liar or a grifter when they see and hear them, and vote accordingly.
What's with the hatred of lawyers? All they do is try to make sure their clients are treated impartially in line with the laws of the land. Property lawyers, family lawyers, public defence defence lawyers....
cool
It's very obvious why they don't do this. Educating people about taxes would do nothing to maintain the status quo
That’s why Labour are ruling it out. They aren’t thinking about how to appeal to the public, they are desperately scared of turning the wealthy people who run our media and fund our politics against them. starmar is trying to sound amorphously progressive while not actually threatening the wealth and power of the people who make fortunes and gain ever more influence from the system as it’s currently run
Just teaching them where money is created would be a good start, practically no one understands Fractional Reserve Banking. How inflation is a stealth tax and the basics of the Austrian school of economics should also be on the curriculum.
I was born towards the end of WW11, spent some years teaching the tax system for the old Workers Education Association. I would simply write a few examples of earnings on the black board and apply the tax system to the numbers. The title of my class ... If folks knew how the taxation system works, there would be a revolution. So no change here then.
World War eleven?? God, I must have been asleep longer than I’d intended!
@@judeirwin2222Lucky you missed 4 but 8 was a corker!
I remember my father complaining, when I was 5 years old, about austerity and how "we all have to tighten our belts". I am now 76! Yes nothing changes.
Should we hope he is a terminator sent from the future to destroy the burgeoning AI industry...?
@@jusw I laughed.
Young people like this give me hope for the future. Unfortunately, Britain has been governed for far too long by rich men born into generational wealth, intent on preserving their privilege. Taxing wealth is the solution to a better society, if only someone in power has the courage to do it.
A third of the population pays most of the tax with the bottom third paying no tax. There is already wealth redistribution the question is the the degree. "Taxing wealth is the solution to a better society" - not necessarily, a better solution would be for everyone to have tradeable skills and be encouraged to use them. A state of dependency is not a better society.
Some economists have projected that both the U.S. and parts of Europe could slip into a recession for a portion of 2023. A global recession, defined as a contraction in annual global per capita income, is more rare because China and emerging markets often grow faster than more developed economies. Essentially the world economy is considered to be in recession if economic growth falls behind population growth...
Emotionally-charged decisions to sell off large quantities of stocks or other investments now lock in your losses, removing any chance for future growth.
A 2022 Northwestern Mutual study found that 75% of U.S. adults admit their financial planning needs improvement. However, only 29% of Americans work with a financial advisor.
Very correct; the bear market has contributed significantly to the growth of my investment. I was able to quickly increase my portfolio from $180K to $472K. Essentially, I was just doing as my financial advisor instructed. You're good to go as long as you get competent assistance.
@@JessrobbieWould it be okay if I asked you to recommend this specific advisor or company that you used their services? Seems you've figured it all out.
@devoncampbell275:
I personally have my portfolio overseen by California-based wealth advisor and fixed income strategist at that
'Britney Cohen Rose > Pro' well established and you'd find her professional bio on the net. However I suggHowever look closer to home, sometimes to move certain amount of money I am required to be in California.
This is an amazing conversation between two intelligent, articulate, and engaging young men. I was interested from start to finish. We need more people voicing sensible, reasonable and forward-thinking ideas such as this. Is it not too late to get these guys into politics? Thank you NS for this sort of content. You’ve got a new subscriber.
Thanks, and welcome!
@@NewStatesmanagreed, well done everyone involved
future is looking good but it will take a while...maybe another ten years or so
@@valuetraveler2026 ive heard that for 5 decades almost lol, the only one with a actual feelgood factor for most people were in the 90s
But Globalisation destroyed the nation state democracy decades ago unfortunately.
Thanks for bringing light to this. I was astonished that Labour didn’t make any noise about this when Starmer and Sunak were made to publish their tax returns.
Of course, with members leaving Labour -where do you think labours record funding is coming from?
I'm not surprised. There's a reason Labour HQ was always anti Corbyn.
@@shabbydabbydo314 That sentence doesn't even make sense
@@M896 think about it...
No, really, it doesn't. Try writing it again, please.
0:23: 📰 The tax code in Britain is heavily skewed in favor of wealth over work, landlords over tenants, and richer homeowners over poorer ones, with almost all inherited capital being passed on untaxed.
2:45: 💰 The speaker proposes various reforms that could raise significant sums of money, such as using property tax to fund local services.
5:46: 📊 The video discusses the difference in tax rates between income and capital gains, using Rishi Sunak as an example.
8:46: 💰 The value of privately held assets in the UK has doubled since Tony Blair came into power relative to GDP, indicating a significant increase in wealth inequality.
11:29: 🗣 The speaker discusses the difference between nominal and real spending, the challenges of cutting public services, and the impact of Tony Blair on the Labour Party.
13:56: 📊 The British public is more conservative on tax policy and social issues than politicians realize.
17:08: 🤔 The speaker discusses the tough decisions that need to be made in politics, including the child benefit cap and tax burdens.
Recap by Tammy AI
Thanks for sharing it! Saving my time with useful time stamps! where you get this AI summary tool Tammy AI??
The mega rich are the issue, the top 1% not the others making decent income with small limited companies yet these are the ones who get hit most and pay in the most tax relatively.
"...almost all inherited capital being passed on untaxed." Classic Tricky Dicky BS we expect from Labour.
Will it be policy to remove the family home provisions? After all, we can't have all those modest 3 bed semis being passed on, can we? They are usually below the threshold now. That's "untaxed inherited capital" after all. Labour has always detested the aspirational working class, so are they going to stick to type?
With 75% of the land stolen from the English people 1000 years ago still in the hands of the descendants, surely it is way beyond time to rectify this injustice? No need to be punitive, just take the estates into public ownership without compensation as 'reparations' for the misdeeds of the past. Hell will freeze over first, even Benn wasn't allowed to mention it.
Widow's pensions? After all, they are funded from "inherited capital" aren't they?
Grandstanding? Smokescreening? Choose to suit.
The country is now governed by an avowed Thatcherite, and the prospective Labour PM is an avowed Blairite, and has stuffed his future cabinet with ditto clones.
Nothing at all will change that favours working people.
I wonder what Penny Mordant's policies will be? The next five years are a write off already.
@Michael-ur3on the rich don’t own the majority of their wealth in person, there’s funds and firms that own their real estate, their art works, their investments, … , so their children won’t be taxed on all of the wealth. Your mums complete capital/wealth was hers, so you pay 40% on all of it.
Inheritance tax should of never been allowed totally illegal
The utilization of after-tax money and tax-free growth makes opening a Roth IRA very advantageous. Through a careful guidance of my FA, I did not pay taxes on my withdrawals of $2.86 million when I retired.
I don't regret the numerous financial mistakes I've made in the past since I've learnt from them. But the biggest one was planning my finances without consulting with a licensed financial counsel.
Indeed, I did make use of a financial counselor. As I get closer to retirement, their advice has been really helpful. I thought compound interest on index funds wouldn't be sufficient because I started late. It's amusing how I've done better than colleagues who have more years of investment experience. I've profited more than $886k tax free.
@@maryHenokNft Please who is the consultant that assists you with your investment and if you don't mind, how do I get in touch with them?
Thanks for the advice. The search for your coach was simple. I investigated her well before using her services. Considering her résumé, she appears competent.
Shut up bot
Couple genuine questions on the council tax points. 1) won’t linking council tax to the owner rather than the occupier just result in increased rent and difficulty assigning discounts for students and single occupants? 2) if done on a % of home value how would the home value be calculated and how often would it be recalculated?
Tax rates are generally geared towards protecting the wealthy. Some things never change.
uk is not real
Who would invest with high tax returns
We have low investment compared to us so who invests anyway
It is more to do with stopping the poor becoming rich.
I’m self made multimillionaire. Why should I pay more tax?
As a middle aged man who has lived through a boom and bust recession, credit crunch and austerity I’ve seen our public sector whittled away and our core services hollowed out. I’ve seen the asset-rich buy their way into a different reality, with private schools and private hospitals. The interests of the country are best served with levelling up and I’d like to see an increase in economic equality. Unearned and unequal wealth should be taxed in a meaningful way.
The tax system of Britain seems to be carefully calibrated to screw over precisely the middle classes responsible for the majority of the country's economic output, seemingly to stop them getting ideas above their station and joining the ranks of the elites by becoming properly wealthy while obfuscating its unfairness (not many people realise the income tax system has a peak marginal rate of 60%, higher than even the Scandi countries. You can thank Alastair Darling for that and the Tories for hanging on to it). My own income tax/NI burden comes out around 40%, once you start adding in the myriad stealth taxes it's more like 50% or possibly more of my earnings ending up in Treasury coffers to fund...something.
Unfortunately, Mr Lambert puts a little too much faith in Labour to rebalance things. I won't be surprised if they wind up imposing a new wealth tax on the wealthy (who can quickly escape the country) while simultaneously increasing income taxes to screw over the middle class (who can't leave so easily) even more, all to fund...something.
Absolutely
great comment
100%. Because the ultimate goal of western elites is the stratification of us, and them. There will be no economic ladder. Simply the sewers and the ivory towers. No in between.
If a government can afford to give it's countries money away then it proves we pay too much tax..
At 4.50 the suggestion is that every home in the country would pay halfa per cent. I agree on the principle of equity in taxation. But how is someone who lives in a one bed flat in London that isn't even nice and worth 500k going to afford the £2500. The value of the flat is not going to generate income. Would it not be a better idea to charge for services used individually?
No the idea is right, but you’ve hit the exceptions, and you’re not wrong either. This is where the gov would have to introduce council tax subsidies for low earners to property value
Yes I agree JimmyCeesAll. And then a new circular argument will probably start about asset rich vs income poor.
@@SibylleHyde I’d say if someone knowingly bought a home that they couldn’t afford to run (to claim asset rich and income poor), tough luck. If someone has inherited their property or it’s just gone up considerably in time Vs income, then fair enough.
As a 73 year old person who works full time and draws some pensions I pay more tax than Rishi. Wow!!!
Sad indeed. That is why they always say any tax reform is a 'socialist thing'. They have fooled us all for so long.
Respect
More income tax, not tax overall.
@@zuzanazuscinova5209 Oh that’s OK then.
ok
I don't think enough is also understood as to why its a bad idea for the richest part of society to have so much money. It reduces a persons opportunity in their own career to be dropped into a world of the rich. Sure they are happy to let you work as a bartender, a cleaner or an office job but a lot of the higher paying/prestigious jobs are ring fenced for the friends and children of the wealthy.
Ring fenced jobs for the rich….! Do you know how industry works?
I would suggest, higher roles are only available to them because they were afforded private education and a position in the top universities (similar to the two presenters). No business can afford to employ an under-performer, it simply does not happen. However I agree, if you are lucky enough to be afforded a private education and position in a top University, you stand a higher chance of being successful and securing a top job.
This is the only privilege the wealthy have…… and is a product of an our failing education system and ridiculous university costs. Scrap university fees for British people and more have the opportunity of higher paid jobs.
Some interesting ideas. However, there are always reactions and responses to changes in tax policy. For instance moving the responsibility for council tax from the tenant to the landlord will simply see rental costs increase for the tenant and no extra tax. The idea of equalising council tax based on property prices makes complete sense (I thought that was the original intention of the tax? I maybe wrong), but would need to be accompanied by changes in central govt funding for councils.
In principle, I agree with increasing wealth taxes, but it's worth pointing out that the UK already raises twice as much tax on property than the OECD average (UK 12%, OECD avg. 6%). So, a realignment, as suggested in the video, should be the focus. The other thing to point out is that the main reason, I believe, that gov'ts avoid increasing tax on wealth is because of the fear around capital flight. The UK is so reliant on private, mainly foreign investment (due to 50+ years of govt neglect, waste, and selling off of our national assets), that changes in this area would need to consider the reactions of private investors. I don't like it, but I believe this is where we are.
The higher the rent, the more valuable the property, the more it pays in tax. Simple raising rent makes it less profitable and property is forced to be less valuable.
Your point is null, georgism ftw
keep in mind that you can't 'spend' the value of your house, council tax is paid from earned (and taxed) income. This creates a problem seen in the US, where homeowners house value ends up taxing them out of the ownership of their home.
Well yes if you buy a stupidly expensive home compared with your income....
A breath of fresh air. Some clear thinking and a willingness to discuss the deep rooted issues driving inequality in Britain ... and propose solutions.
The government could turn around the country overnight by shutting down the offshore tax evasion and money laundering system. If the government recovered this revenue it would fund the NHS five times over every year and lower the retirement age to fifty or double the state pension. Incredible figures!
The rich will just leave.
@@yoshua9676 not sure that's a problem.
@@tomriley5790 The OP's wants the government to raise more tax revenue. If the rich leave they won't do that. The bigger issue here's the fact our homes can be bought up by rich people who live in the UK and abroad and never left empty. 2nd homes should be taxed.
Canadian fan of the program. This was one of the best videos NS has done for youtube. Mr. Lambert took the audience through the major taxation ideas for their consideration at the next election. No other UK media outlet has done the job he did. Interviewer asked great questions. On all the other media channels, focus is often placed on comparison of UK to G7 or EU financial results. That would be the only minor criticism I have of this interview.
I'm Australian, and agree completely. This is a conversation that needs to happen in all countries with ageing populations, growing wealth inequality, and unattainable housing expenses.
Agree as well as a Canadian living for the last year in London and seeing so many similarities on how inequality is getting intitutionalised.
I'm not always blown away by New Statesman's coverage but credit to them for doing this. I am sick to death of Labour's completely nonsensical approach to the economy going uncritiqued or somehow accepted as 'grown-up politics'. Their approach is completely inadequate for dealing with the inequality that now exists.
Ns went against labour when they promoted policies they now talk about.
What's the Tories approach? Crash the economy and lose 100's of billions a year through cronyism /corruption, Brexit & political skulduggery and general managed decline of the pillars of society which are inextricably linked to the performance of the economy, then bully and steal from the poor to give to the mega wealthy who have more money than they know what to do with and through their spending patterns drive up asset prices while being taxed less than someone on 37k.
Because there is not Tory or Labour any more. They are all part of the globalist uni-party following the WEF mantra of UN agenda 2030.
Aye, the Tories have done a much better job than Labour, and will continue to do so, in the run-up to winning the next GE. /s
@@wolfen210959 Yea good one. You probably believe Jimmy Savile cared about young people too right?
The Council Tax change proposed is stupid. Saying Londoners pay 1/10 of what Burnley people pay is twisted. The average house price in Burnley is around £130.000. The average house price is Oxford is £610,000. However for a teacher, nurse, police officer etc the salary is the same. Thus these people in Oxford, London and the South are already significantly worse off financially than people in Burnley. Why should they pay 4.5x as much Council Tax, for similar services? Crazy idea.
Incentivise Innovation, reduce the size and waste of government. Make all government activity a transparent and audited profit/cost center. Otherwise no matter how much money is raised through taxes will continue to be squandered by the governments. Every Country/State is burdened and at the mercy of governments that are only self interested and self propogating.
Remove the Red tinted sunglasses. Forget party politics. The issue with the system runs much deeper.
As someone who works in the tax industry and used to journalists butchering details, I was pleasantly surprised by this. I think an important part to mention is that when they talk about council tax and CGT etc. they need to clarify that it is about the effective rate in relation the value of their home/gain rather than that the wealthy are paying less (although in some cases I’m sure they are). I might be biased as an Irishman but I think the UK could learn a bit from the Irish tax system, where although there are high income taxes, we at least have a CGT rate of 33% which cuts in very quickly. We also have a gift tax as well as an inheritance tax which drastically increases the amount of IHT that is paid. There are annual allowances (which should by right be bigger) and lifetime allowances. The gift/inheritance tax rate is 33%, not 40%. In addition to help family business and farmers pass things to the next generation there is a 90% deduction to the value of gifts. I think it would level the playing field a small bit.
Great piece! Unfortunately, many politicians on both sides of the fence are part of the "asset class" and consequently, they don't want to implement real change to taxation on assets. It's the same here in Australia, where the ALP merely tinkers at the periphery, but won't really hit the upper end of asset holders as hard as they should.
How does it make sense to base the amount council tax someone should pay depending on the value of thier house?? That like saying you should pay a higher phone bill because your shoes are expensive....
In terms of UK taxation, the REAL question should be: Why do we need such high government spending? The answer is, frankly, that too many people are living a lifestyle far above what they can afford (and what their productivity can justify, in the case of those working in low end jobs.) Too many people expect "the government" will pay for the things they want but cannot earn for themselves. As for Council Tax, the whole point is that it funds your local council - why should the people in Kensington and Chelsea pay for the profligacy of the Sheffield or Leicester councils? As for CGT, 20% is the tax on the profit from investments - the main point about investments is that they are a RISK, many people lose money with their investments (but the government doesn't send them a cheque for 20% of their losses each year!) I've no problem with the idea that taxes need to be raised to pay for services, but there needs to be a far more honest discussion about WHAT we are spending this money on, because why should "the rich" (who educated their kids privately, pay for private healthcare, pay for private childcare) pay twice for things like education, healthcare and daycare whilst at the same time being told "the rich need to pay their fair share!" The "rich" are the only net contributors to our society, and that should be honestly acknowledged, because they are also the most educated and the most mobile, so if life is made too unpleasant for them, THEY WILL LEAVE. But go ahead, encourage another brain drain and capital flight, it worked out so well for the UK the last time we had a socialist LIEbour government in the 1970s.
Until we have a transparent system our economy will never thrive. I am getting old, I can still remember Lady Docker flaunting her gold- plated Rolls Royce. This has been going on since the early 1950s. None of this would be reinvested in industry, instead swept off to off-shore tax havens. Grossly unfair to employees who generated this wealth.
You forgot to mention her private yacht. It’s been going on much further back than the 1950s and much of the wealth that built so many of our 18th and early 19th Century National Trust properties and private stately homes was derived from income from the slave trade (e.g. Capesthorne Hall in Cheshire).
Employees don’t generate wealth. CUSTOMERS do.
i work 7 days a week pushing a hoover & mop about. I have 2 jobs one is £15 per hour & the other is £11.50 per hour. I am basically working one job to pay my tax, national insurance my rent & council tax.
The reason for the backlash against Globalisation. The income and lifestyle any job can provide a person is ceasing to be determined by the country they live in and the norms of that country, and increasingly now by the 'Global' average lifestyle for that job. Well done for being a cleaner, it's a valuable and important job, but say India with its approximately 20% of the global population. Do you think the average cleaner in India lives the lifestyle of a working class person in the UK, possibly a 'proper' place to live, schooling, public health services, possibly a car, a holiday, a smart phone a holiday? Or do you think they live in abject poverty in a slum?
What a comment!
As someone with an economics degree and now a retired chartered accountant, I have heard most of Harry's ideas for change before, albeit maybe in a slightly different context and sadly it seems a bit like Groundhog Day. I feel that the nut the Labour government tried to crack in the 1970s by bring in Inheritance Tax (with exemptions for family-run firms and farms) seemed a good way forward, as the rates were higher than under the previous death duties regime. This was watered down when Thatcher came to power and has never been reinstated.
One issue is the number of loopholes that our complicated tax system throws up that wealthy people can pay accountants to exploit on their behalf. We also need to work out a better way of stopping people moving wealth overseas (except for genuine investment) and that may mean punitive taxes when the money is repatriated.
We also need to have a tax that is more akin to Capital Gains Tax than Stamp Duty when people move house. That needs a bit of fine tuning to avoid innocent people being hammered but successive policies have just resulted in house prices escalating wildly in my lifetime to the point where young people can't expect to own property or get a mortgage until they are middle-aged.
I could go on but the more I think about the more I realise that the UK is being governed by people who are pandering to a small proportion of the population and the rest just have to lump it.
But the people paying .01 % still probably pay more in real terms than those who pay 1 percent or more.
As someone who is a Qualified UK tax advisor the first sentence is laughable. Favours the landlord over the tenant?! I have had clients who, because of tax, are better off financially to leave their property completely vacant than to let it out.
If you want to opine on Tax then get at least one qualification in it and try again.
Landowners benefit from the capital growth, especially from infrastructure projects like the Elizabeth Line and the high speed Kent commuter service.
@@physiocrat7143everyone benefits from them when they happen. When they don’t or fall through there is capital loss too and that benefits those looking to upsize or purchase property.
Also that’s nothing to do with taxation?
@@Ben_1993
Everyone does not benefit from them equally. The only people who benefit from the Elizabeth Line are those who can use the service. Nobody in Sunderland gets any benefit.
In the end, the benefit goes to owners of property along the route who have made a killing and can charge higher rents to tenants. The line has brought up property values in the previously depressed Woolwich area and along the Thames Valley, which now enjoys direct access to Central London.
London Overground did the same thing for parts of Lewisham and Southwark. The Docklands Light Railway extension to Lewisham also gave property prices a boost. Docklands could not have happened without the Jubilee Line Extension to Canary Wharf and Stratford.
London landowners get all the gravy ladled out and paid for by the taxpayers of the whole country.
This has everything to do with taxation.
@@physiocrat7143and those in the South East pay far more tax than the rest of the country.
Also Londoners use infrastructure far more than anywhere else in the UK. Bus or Tube everyday multiple times. In regional towns everyone drives.
Do you have proof that tax payers money is disproportionately redistributed to the south east?
No it has everything to do with spending and nothing to do with taxation.
@@Ben_1993
London sucks in wealth created in the rest of the country through the tax and financial systems which are concentrated there. Consequently, it appears that London and the South East are paying a disproportionately large share of the national tax burden.
However, the benefits largely accrue to owners of land as they are reflected in commercial and residential rents and property prices, which is the point not very well made in the video.
But matters are worse than that. Away from London and the South East, there are many locations where economic activity would be viable in the absence of tax. This gives rise to welfare dependency which is an unnecessary burden on the state. It also leads to migration and added costs for infrastructure.
As a qualified tax expert you are no doubt aware of "tax incidence"; the burden of taxes nominally paid by employees eg PAYE Income Tax and NI falls on employers and is part of labour costs. The burden of VAT is substantially on sellers since the tax is partially absorbed so as to maintain volumes of sales. The business rate is damaging due to it being based on out of date rental values which may have dropped since the assessments were made. The entire tax system is a complete mess. If the aim was to do as much damage as possible, then it could be counted as a success.
The UK is by no means the worst country. Germany and Sweden probably win the booby prizes.
Surely if tenants don't have to pay council tax it will just get reflected in their rent instead?
In addition properties that in London would overnight lose half their value or more.
I completely agree that the taxation system needs to change as Harry explains, but also the loopholes that enable the super rich to move their assets offshore need to be addressed. Also, wealth inequality has increased since the early 80's (neoliberalism). I think that there is a real appetite for change e.g. public ownership of national infrastructure seems to becoming more popular. Water companies pumping sewage into our rivers whilst paying huge dividends, or train companies subsidised by the tax payer running a mediocre service whilst paying billions to shareholders make no sense.
I do despair when people moan about dividend payments to share holders. People have to remember that pension funds fund pension payments via dividend payments. Anybody who has a pension private or workplace is an indirect shareholder's and receives dividend payments indirectly via the value of their pension. What should be taught in school is how to buy shares and create a passive income. School does not teach how money works and how to create wealth. I am sure it would catch the imagination of many kids who under achieve, who see no way but to stay poor working in most jobs. Their ambition becomes to join a gang and make easy money selling drugs. The wealthy do not want the state educated children to understand how money works. They want to keep that privilege for their own children. I talk to many people about share ownership and building a passive income. Their answer is that you understand that, I don't. The reason they don't understand share ownership is because they were never taught how money works in school. They learn how to get a credit card but are not taught how to use and manage credit cards and how to make credit work for them. I hardly buy everything outright with my capital, I use interest-free credit to pay for nearly everything and then use my capital to work for me. Share ownership is not about a quick buck but a long term investments to build dividend payments for later in life and achieve financial security.
@@michaeloconnor9465 I agree, Knowledge of the advantages of share ownership (which is true public ownership) is hard to come by in state schools and it is only when you get to university that you meet people who can help. I suggest people contact the share foundation (Gavin Oldham) who can help.
Can you elaborate on the loopholes you describe? Curious to know, if you were moving abroad (either to retire or for a job opportunity), would you be happy to have the value of your assets (including savings and house sale proceeds) taxed on exit?
@michaeloconnor9465 one man's passive income is another man's enslavement
The wealthy should have the freedom to move their assets offshore, as those assets belong to them. In a world that values freedom, individuals should have the right to relocate if their current residence doesn't align with their beliefs.
The UK tax system just encourages evasion !
All tax systems encourage you to use the law to your advantage. Tax system aims to encourage economic activity. The average working person can reduce the tax they pay by paying into their pension more, investing into S&S ISA that is free from tax, and there are lots of ways to reduce your tax burden legally as a ltd company. The average person can do all these things.
Especially by those people who preside over it.
We need more of these people in politics
I daresay they do.. but choose to put their boss and doners in money profit gain
Communists?
In London, most working people are TENANTS who do not own the property that they’re living in. If you raise the council tax in London, it’s the poor and struggling tenants who will have to pay, not the landlords.
With the English political duopoly system (Labour vs Conservative) it is virtually impossible to change the status quo. It requires a system with many different political parties, each of which has a main topic on the program (e.g. tax). And where the 'tax party' in a coalition government can get its policy through. Other parties with other topics on the program can get their policy through. This is how a society changes for the better. 😉
Your solution shows that PR is a pre-requisite - we can only hope that reform of the Lords with a PR elected second assembly takes away the fear of change for the governing assembly
We need individual representation.
We have the technology..
Does it work though? a brief look at some of the multi party setups around the world shows lots of governments that simply cant get anything done due to lack of consensus or when they do reach major decisions its often done at the price of bold change where interest groups use their bargaining power to water down or change the policy or program to their own benefit not necessarily to the betterment of those its meant to serve..
I don't disagree that what we have now is a catastrophic mess for a whole host of reasons, but one thing a single party majority can get you is decisive action, where the issue then becomes putting the right people in power that align with the actual needs and wants of the populous, something we've soundly failed at for decades.
TL/DR Coalition rule can help stop policy's you don't want being rammed through, but it does so at the cost of holding back policy that you do want to see come to pass in a timely fashion...
@@richardhorton25 can you imagine the peoplewho get voted in tho? they be love island contenstants :/
Sadly, that would require a better form of democracy than currently exists, anywhere in the world. Most countries of the world have a duopoly system, even if it was not intended to be, simply because most people in the democracy are "centrists", therefore most political parties straddle that "centrist" line, with occasional periods of extremes. This inevitably leads to a left of centre party, and a right of centre party, with additional minority parties usually campaigning on a single issue, such as the Green Party here in the UK. The main difference here in the UK is that we only have one party on the right, and many parties on the left, therefore the right leaning party tends to win more elections, as the left leaning parties are contesting with each other for their share of the vote. I understand that there are countries which have a PR type system, but most of those are still dominated by one of two parties opposed to each other.
As long it's fair for both sides poor and rich. Having capital gains tax almost half the percentage of income tax is a great example of the system being fundamentally broken.
why should it be fair to rich folk? if i take half a multi millioniars money is he poor? ;)
Absolutely spot on analysis I don't understand why these ideas are not being hammered home by Labour.
Really have you been listening the past 30 years labour don't care about the working classes
The leader of the labor party is just a rich person too with income from capital gains. Not as rich but he certainly benefits from the current system
Look what happened to Corbyn, the public rather have BoJo than any radical shift in tax structure and infrastructure spend. We’re getting what we voted for, not sure why people are moaning.
Corbyn lol million pound house in London MP pension and wife has a sweat shop in Mexico the your corbyn
Labour is no different from the Conservative. They are both in the same bed
Fantastic discussion! This is why I’m all for bringing in and allowing young minds to thrive.
Excellent interview. Refreshing to have two young guys calmly point out the injustices of the UK tax system without resorting to accusatory or emotive language. We need calm heads, analytical minds to get us out of this mess.
10:27 - "an aging stagnating society that doesn't want high levels of immigration". Searing. Brilliant piece.
If you want to know the Tory future, read Dickens
Having poorer areas pay less council tax and richer areas pay more would just mean that the poor areas would get less local government services, wouldn't it?
I lived in the USA and one of the deep deep inequities in the USA is that schools are funded by local property tax. So poor areas have the worst schools and that keeps those areas poor.
This would do the same thing but with social care, homelessness prevention, local leisure services, adult education, the arts and music, children's and youth services, etc etc.
The central government in the UK essentially regulates and controls the council budgets and already effectively redistributes the funding. It's a different system from the US (which itself varies at the state level). So it's already being centrally managed, it's really just where you turn the dial...
Also lived in the US. The local nature of property taxes is only one of the major issues with it.
It's a tax on what's is most people largest none liquid asset, that they have no control over it's value or ability sell a fraction of the asset to cover the taxes.
So what happens is people are priced out of there own homes, because they buy a cheap house, there is a housing boom and they can no longer afford the tax bill. There left with no choice but to sell and relocate to a cheaper area, as they don't have the income to cover the tax.
Then there's the issue that taxing someone on the value of there property, requires defining the value of that property. The US local authorities spend insane amounts of money doing this yearly and basically every property owner argues and fight the value. Which is just a massive waste of time and money.
It's just a very stupid way to tax people. The UK council tax is much more sensible system and it would be much better to adjust that, add more bands, adjust how properties are assigned to bands, making the band pricing more reflective of the local situation etc etc. Than go to the regressive and flawed US style system.
The U.S is effectively a third world country. For every billionaire there are thousands of people living on the streets in defacto refugee camps. They are the perfect example of inequality.
they’re all going bankrupt anyway 😅 the councils were investing all their money in real estate I guess
It's time for a Land Value Tax
Yup. In the US I pay the property tax on both my own and rental properties - same rate
Long overdue: I would replace Business Rates and Council Taxes with a Land Value Tax!
My only concern with the normalizing of Council Tax to 0.5% is that you'd end up with the same problems as the American schooling system. If the Council halves the tax rate but is a higher-need area, then the area will suffer with a reduced tax take. I assume, therefore, that such a proposal would involve some kind of re-balancing of incomes across councils. It might have been useful to elaborate on that a bit more.
Rebalancing council rates would have a lot of effects. Wages can be lower if rates are lower. There could be more disparity in purchases power between authorities than there already is. Property values are also very dynamic change the upkeep costs substantially and prices will fly off in unpredictable directions.
Completely agree. Avg house price in Burnley is 133k. .5% is around £600 p/a. London’s average is £750k, so .5% is £3750.
If London are paying 6x the same CT, how can Burnley expect the same standard of services.
Landowners would just put the rent up to cover them paying council tax if they had to pay it.
If you follow the American economy,the old adage of they sneeze,we catch a cold,is very pertinent,American property taxes are out of control,uk council tax,potentially rising too unaffordable levels.
Unfair taxes for me are
1. Inheritance tax, my father worked hard all his life, lived a meagre existence hence built up some savings to have a good part of it taken away by IHT. He has already paid tax on his earnings, but a double whammy to have it taxed again.
2. Tax on interest on savings previously taxed.
The country is in dire straights financially due to covid, green policies and the fact that 50% of the population are net drains , not contributors to the country. I don't see an easy answer, taxes are unfair undesirable but a necessity.
I notice that socialists always consider inheritance as unfair for the people receiving it and ignore the rights of people giving it. Yes, if you look at the stats, about a third of the population pay most of the taxes and the bottom third none at all.
Excellent work New Stateman - Come on Labour you can be better than these Tory leaches. Economic justice now!
Labour voter all my life. Now voting conservative because there is no difference. Might as well give it to the OG.
@@pacman7959 ✌Tory Troll.
Is it economic justice or a hand out you seek?
Me and the Mrs are in that awful 'just in the 40%' tax bracket. It's an absolute aspiration killer, because you've either gotta smash through it and earn a lot more, and or its really not worth bothering with. And that's where we are at. Why take a promotion with more work, stress, etc. We used to invest money but why risk it when if you dare to make a bit they will hammer you for 40% of tax. Why put in some overtime at work to give half of it to the government. Why try and accumulate any wealth to get smashed with a inheritance tax bill?
Imagine having an undergrad and masters student loan on top of that. An extra 15% makes that about 58% tax over 50k. Absolutely insane.
This problem of stepped level taxation affects aspiration and survival for both personal situations and business .
Three times I have grown a small retail business, only to find the vat threshold unconquerable.
Suddenly reaching a stage where 12% of your turnover becomes tax ( 20% less any input tax) means that what used to be your earnings just disappears overnight.
I agree that additional taxing of assets rather than taxing work seems more sustainable.
That's not how the UK tax works. You'll only pay 40% on the amount above the threshold, not the total value.
You'll still be earning more than someone in the band below you. Saying otherwise is just a lie, and serves the rich's interests.
Indeed these young guys would further tax your hard worked for investments and responsibilities taken. You do the simple work / life balance calculations and decide not to improve your positions. That’s the rub, tax the risk takers and responsible and you kill the economic drivers. IMHO
Highly unlikely you’ll ever face an inheritance tax bill, it effects a tiny proportion of estates (anything over £1 million).
Freezing tax thresholds is a tax on the poor ,they should be ashamed
Ye i stopped paying taxes years ago. I hate thus world. I had to escape, im living in my van off my own back self reliant and loving life in freedom and sticking one up at the government. Im working part time and enjoying nature and getting to know my true spirit. Lets stand together and show our greedy governing powers we will not let them scre us anymore. Stand up for ourselves, dont let fear rule you. We are amazing qnd have such powers inside.
I think we are too obsessed about the economy crashing. In the right sense, the economy never crashes. It just undergoes cycles, and almost always recovers. So I really don't care what the predictions are. I just want to grow my investment portfolio. I read that lots of folks are making multi-figures as incomes despite the downturn. Any tips on how to make substantial progress in earning?
Nobody knows anything! You need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin, while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.
But the professionals are still crushing it right now because they have both the necessary approach to pull off a profit in the market plus access to insider market knowledge that isn’t made public.
Exactly why i enjoy market decisions being guided by a professional, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk management and market experience, been using the expertise and guidance of John Desmond Heppolette, for over 5years+ and I've netted over $3million in that time frame..
I've shuffled through a few financial advisor in the past, but settled with John Desmond Heppolette. The strategy he use is recession-proof, more specifically profit-oriented, and most likely, you'd find his basic info on the net, he's a renowned advisor.
Thanks for the information! I just discovered his exceptional resume when I made a research of his full names online. He appears knowledgeable and well accredited. I drop him a message and book a call session with him!
THIS is what journalism should be like.
Hardly, both the interviewed and interviewer share the same opinions. Good if you want to live in a bubble.
The problem we have in the UK is compound taxation. Based upon your proposal, its tax wealth instead of income, ok fair enough, but what about all the other taxes? Council Tax, Road Tax, Stamp Duty, Duty on Cigarettes and Alcohol etc. What we need to do is simplify the Tax System so people understand their total tax up front, with no hidden taxes, and then appreciate the absolute waste in Government. If we had a simpler tax system for Business & Income/wealth, that would make more sense.
Agreed.
You forgot the TV tax
Agree , we were supposed to abolish V A T when we left the E U , seems the average people haven't benefitted from either being a member of the E U or being out of it , when we were in we didn't have much of a say , but we payed the second largest amount in , now were out everything has gone up even more , really can't win .
There’s a thing called the Overton window which restricts how fast and how radical changes can be. Any tax change creates winners and losers so it’s very dangerous for a government to stray too far too fast from what has already been normalised. Liz Truss discovered the Overton window in her brief tenure of No 10.
Yes but no but. You can consider them stealth taxes, and sometimes they are, but why should I pay the same amount of fuel duty [edit: should read 'Vehicle Excise Duty' not 'fuel duty'] on the 5000 miles I drive for work a year as someone who drives 20000 miles a year when I don't pollute and wear out the road as much? Why should I pay alcohol tax for alcohol I don't drink etc etc?
The point of some taxes is that they help encourage other behaviour, or raise money which could be used (note I said 'could') be used to mitigate the negative effect of certain actions. Alcohol causes cancer. Smoking causes cancer. Neither have any real health benefits. Is it a good idea to use tax to try to make them less affordable? Should tobacco taxes be used directly to help improve certain NHS departments for those affected? But what if giving up smoking and drinking is easier for the privileged among us and does it become a tax on the poor?
Hmm. This whole redistribution of wealth is more complicated than I thought, said Dennis Moore.
This is wild! There’s barely a difference between torries and so called labour, to hell with them all. It’s the perfect time for a party who actually care about the people to emerge
In a first past the post system, your best option is to support the least worst viable option. Anything else just helps the worst viable option.
If you want to support more nuanced parties (rather than broad church parties like Torys and Labour) and expect them to have any power, then you need proportional representation first.
There is no one single party on the face of the earth who cares about the people, human beings only care about themselves not others !
Your point on basing council tax on property value has 2 key floors:
1: Who decides the property value? The true value of the property is only decided at the point in which it is sold. I think its unfair to be told the estimated value of the property by a third party council, bank, model or otherwise, its open to manipulation and adds unnecessary effort
2: A person on realises the increase in the value of their property at the point of sale. Although you gave examples to suit your point of Burnley paying less and Kensington & Chelsea paying more I Imagine there will be people that can't afford their increased council tax
Yup, keep taxing those who work and invest, and give it to those who can't be bothered. Sounds like a one-way ticket to an economy like North Korea.
Whilst moving Council Tax away from the tennant and onto the owner sounds like a good idea, there's not really anything to stop a landlord from raising the rent further to 'cover the cost' of that additional fee.
He would have to increase it by more, to cover the risk he is now carrying if a tenant fails to pay. So ultimately it costs the good tenant more.
Of course - this would happen to start with but the purpose is that homeowners pay for houses regardless of occupancy. If you have no tenants nobody is paying that tax today. If instead the landlord is on the hook regardless of if they have a tenant, they have greater incentive to fill the house, which means they have to compete harder for getting a tenant quicker and means there is greater supply, lowering costs overall (and giving local authorities more funding from the revenue raised on empty properties)
Basically agree with you but the 2 aren't directly related. The rent is determined by supply and demand. With increased costs Landlords would attempt to recover them but the market decides if they can. Where they can't some would be driven out of the market, increasing rents until there is a new equilibrium. Overall makes little difference.
Politicians have been using taxpayers as cashcows for decades. Lib/lab/con all help themselves to taxpayers money.
No just the tories giving big tax cuts for big corporate businesses and the wealthy and higher payed since 2010, and at the exact same time slashing funding in real terms adjusted for inflation for all public services to its lowest levels in in well over 40 yrs or more. And screwing the rest of us basic rate tax payers etc
Very well explained ... ultimately the rich are the people who write the tax laws...
consider changing personal taxation to match the business model, this may result in a giant leap for the economy.
As a European living in this country for over a decade I can't get my head around how unequal this country is in the matter of taxes and privileges for wealthy nobility lords... Upper class in general. It's crazy.
Yeah it's like almost a feudal system now
It's been that way since my ancestors lived in Britain. And they came over on a sailing ship.
@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 Romans? Vikings or Saxons? 😅
i know its shocking how 10% of adults have never worked and nearly a third of adults earn less than the taxable minimum, meaning nearly half of the adult population don't pay income tax. it is disgusting how these poor people don't pay income tax like the rest of us.
oh wait you probably meant it was unequal somehow the other way around.
Wodelouse… taking your comment seriously, I’m afraid we need people who have the balls to get off their arses and take risks, and why shouldn’t an investment (and risk) be taxed at a lower figure.
We live in a nanny state and most people expect the state to pay for them, so this encourages ‘why work mentality’
I’ve been self employed all my life and have worked through sweat and worry, and now I’m retired and can’t enjoy my life, but the socialist say tax that capitalist pig, why should he be wealthy while I’ve sat on my arse and done f..k all with my life.
We need rich people, if not, go and live in China and all live the same
Some good points in the video, but disappointed that there wasn't any mention of the potential for a Land Value Tax. It's the most effective form of wealth tax, since it can't be dodged by simply moving the taxed assets abroad - land can't just be moved away. It should replace any property tax because it doesn't discourage the development of buildings, rather the only thing it discourages is speculation/ land hoarding, since sitting on an empty home or lot and profiting from its future sale wouldn't be viable if you had to pay a big tax on it. For this reason it would also open up the current supply of housing somewhat (although probably not enough to fully solve the housing crisis, it would help). Under a 100% LVT, landlords would only profit from the quality of service they provide to tenants, rather than also making unearned money from the value of the land they own. They would not be able to pass the LVT on to renters because they already charge what the market can sustain - people can't pay any more for the same house/flat. Farmers wouldn't be affected because a square foot of farmland would have a much lower valuation than a square foot of land in a city. The only tricky part of this tax would be continuously reassessing the unimproved value of land, but it's done in other countries where this tax exists like Denmark and Estonia (though some sort of market-based auction solution might be preferable).
Overall I wish there was more talk in Labour circles about conducting potential trials of this, because if found to work it would really improve the efficiency and progressiveness of taxation in the country at time when tax reform is desperately needed, as the video pointed out. And something like this could easily find support from all corners of the electorate, as it both promotes more productivity *and* is a plain fair and progressive tax. Politicians would just have to be explicitly clear in highlighting how homeowners would be protected, since house prices would fall due to the sale price of the land the house is on falling (because it'd be taxed).
Would this exclude the Royalty? perhaps, the new Statesman does not talk about this because it would eventually have to answer hard questions on how much acreage the royalty squats on.
NO tax is fair as it is theft.
Excellent video with an intelligent approach to the UK's grossly unfair tax system. However, I have two quibbles:-
1. Only the top 1% pay capital gains tax? I have had to pay that on occasion yet my accumulated wealth and income are modest by most people's standards.
2. Understanding the tax code system would make the scales fall ftom people's eyes? Am I missing something here? Are we talking about the PAYE tax codes? Or have I jumped to a wrong conclusion? Because I don't think a better understanding of how PAYE tax codes work will lead people to demand a shift to taxing asset wealth and away from income.
It's just socialist lies wrapped up in a thesaurus of words.
That's THE most sensible thing anyone has said to me about taxation in the last twenty years.
Shame it will require someone with genuine leadership skills to enact it and so I suspect we shall continue on a slow managed decline for the next twenty years.
Don't agree, we should have a basic 15 percent tax of everyone companies and employees and business owners with no expenses aloud and government should not be aloud to spend more that. 3 percent over GDP
He has just realised if you work on a hourly rate you will always be in debt.
Bloody 'ell, someone at the New Statesman actually get it
Well done that young man,
Make him the next Chancellor
Chancellor for North Korea, not here!😃
Brilliant. This should be shown to schools, colleges and Universities so that those entering the real world can understand how the tax game is currently played.
😂 that won’t fit the agenda,will it
Brilliant. Inspiring to see and hear younger minds analysing the current mess so accurately.
Here is why I’m against any new taxes despite not being wealthy. It ALWAYS starts off as a tax on the ‘rich’ yet years later ends up as a tax on the average person. Show me one example where this is not the case.
If the "average person" makes substantial income from their invested wealth, then I don't see a problem with that. It's a capital gains tax, it should apply equally. It's just that it shouldn't be taxed less than working for a living. Tax income as income.
Nobody is talking about new taxes, it's about changing the rates for existing taxes so that the wealthy pay more. There has been an asset boom over that last few years and much of the wealth has gone to people with assets from people who work.
Stop your government giving your taxes away to other countries and involving the country in war overseas then talk about increasing taxes
@antonymossop3135 yes and no.
If you have a salary you get that every month that you are employed
If you invest anything the upside potential is very variable so you au least need a proper offset in place for when you score a loss.
This is such a lame view of capital gains. In an scenario of increased global mobility, it is easy for capital to move out of the country. Capitalists drive this economy. Here I refer to data not some opinion based on emotions. I say CGT should be lowered to attract capital and drive the economy further. People are better off paying taxes in a growing economy. Paying higher tax on a higher income is better than paying lower tax in an economy in shambles
I pay 55% overall, due to higher rate tax, NI, student loans. Granted, I am on a good salary. But I still have to pay £10k+ to bring my wife in the UK and we get no adequate healthcare for the tax we pay, plus she's entitled to 0 public funds if we get hit by a bus. Absolute shame.
Where did you purchase your wife from?
Puting council tax onto the owner not the tenant will just increase the rents anyway
If there's competition they can't. I.e build lots of houses and lots of social houses.
I know pip dream 😂
Fantastic conversation. All the points discussed chimed with me. We must tax the wealth and asset class to redistribute more fairly. This will restart economic growth. You have a new subscriber
Thank you both. Excellent verbal essay on a difficult subject
The problem is, saying rich people like Sunak who "only" paid less as a percentage, is that he would have paid something like £1m in taxes last year. And the argument seems to be, from people who may have paid £10,000, this isn't enough. How is this a fair argument? Because the other thing is, if you tax rich people too much, they just move away to a new tax domicile, and that's the end of that. Instead of getting the £1m from Sunak, you get nothing. And what's worse, is that the hole left by that, will then have to be made up by whoever is left.
You fundamentally need to encourage entrepreneurship, and aspiration. Allow people to actually keep the majority of what they make, otherwise they'll just go somewhere else and make their money there, and pay less taxes wherever else they choose to go. This discussion (as much of it as I could stomach, anyway) doesn't pay any attention to the fact that the world exists outside the UK's borders, and that people can move to another country easily, particularly if they are wealthy. This would seem to be a very, very, simplistic argument.
I think most of the comments made , are sensible and would make a massive difference to our Country if they was put in to action now I think it would help everyone
I got as far as council tax replaced poll tax.
one of the biggest issues with tax in the UK is that is just not thought about. No-one has to do their taxes unlike a lot of countries where submitting your taxes for the year is an actual thing, where you do it yourself or have a tax accountant do it for you when open the door for understand what you can and can't achieve within the tax law. UK has none of that.
I've been doing my own self-assessments for 15 years. What do you mean it's not a thing?
What a great piece of information. Great job guys. This should be played on national television and everywhere people get information.❤❤❤
Not green energy, it could be a way to reduce income tax. The end.
I really applaud this, I've been saying this myself. But UK politicians will not shift the tax emphasis to wealth over income until the USA does it first, which it is not doing.
Also, as highlighted, the wealthy "Rishi Sunaks" will not tax themselves.
Politicians will talk about "levelling up" all day long, but the reality is they have worked hard to centralize wealth and power away and out of the hands of ordinary working people.
They have "hijacked" society for the wealthy. This is a political choice.
They can't even "future fake" us now due to poor economic growth, but they have placed working people into a state of endless austerity through their non-progressive taxation system.
As commented by kevoreilly above, such taxes have existed widely in the U.S. since ever. It's the U.K. voters who choke on this, not Americans. What many counties in the U.S. call "property tax" is roughly a kind of Land Value Tax - which Brit voters don't understand but hate anyway.
The working class pay a lot of their meagre earnings in taxes & get very little back in the way of public services while the better off get loopholes to avoid paying taxes on the huge sums they make from taxpayers subsidising the companies they have shares in, it's the Tory way of running things, it suits them just fine & that's exactly how they intend to keep it.
So nice to see young people with knowledge, can't wait for Millennials and Gen Z make huge changes.
France still hasn’t paid a penny on its WWI loans to Treasury since 1931. The debt is somewhere near a trillion now. Why not call the debt in to give some relief to taxpayers?
This starts on the false premise that the rich barely pay any tax and the poor pay the lion's share, which is the opposite of reality.
The top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues.
Now if 1 person owns a 3 bed semi in an outer suburb of Liverpool and another a 3 bed semi in central London, the council tax paid on each respectively will be similar, yet a much higher percentage of the Liverpool house's value.
There is nothing fundamentally unfair about that, as both would be costing their councils in services, a similar amount.
By that point under 5 minutes in, I'd heard more than enough bollocks to continue.
The trick of socialism is to persuade people that the life of a parasite is good.
They should be taxing aircraft fuel.
I live and pay taxes in the US. The same inequity applies: the higher tax rate on work, as opposed to the lower tax rate on investment income (capital gains). You made the problem very clear. Thank you.