Nick Clegg's latest grasp at political opportunism is to demand a minimum rate tax in the UK - what he calls a 'tycoon tax'.
It won't work. Here's why:
1) You have to align capital gains tax and income tax rates. He hasn't said he'll do that.
2) You have to get rid of discriminatory domicile rules. Tories won't buy that.
3) You have to stop people shifting significant amounts of income to their partners. They will already do that to exploit increased personal allowance you want Nick, giving benefit to best off. How are you going to stop that Nick?
4) You have to make people taxable on their personal service companies. Are you proposing that Nick? I wish you would.
5) You have to make sure that offshore is open to view - or people will hide their income there. But this government - and Clegg's a member - is planning to preserve offshore banking secrecy for good through its deal with Switzerland. Fail again Nick.
6) You have to stop people diverting their income into trusts for family members, and treat those trusts as the settlors. Are you going to do that Nick?
7) You've got to have a real general anti-avoidance principle - but Lib Dems aren't promising that.
I want these things Nick - because they'll deliver progressive taxation. But your suggestion of a minimum tax without them is an empty political gesture. Even more so when you're suggesting a rate of 25% or so.
Come on - get real man! Let's talk about what really needs to be done - not just saving your skin. GThen, maybe, people will take you seriously again but right now this is just another off the cuff reaction with absolutely no substance to it that will actually make the rich richer in all likelihood with them saying, none the less, they're fully compliant with the law. In that sense this is just a Clegg fig leaf - and that really worries me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
mansion tax ,robin hood tax,tycoon tax,how many more stupid names can these buffoons think up.its plain to even the most casual observer that land value tax is whats needed so forget about your dragons den tax,chelsea mews tax,posh leafy suberb tax concentrate on a land tax.It cant be moved offshore the revenue raised will more or less eliminate the deficit so forget the smoke and mirrors and tax land.
Respectfully, that is undoubtedly part of the answer.
But even though i advocated land value taxes on radio 4 this morning they are only part of a solution
A good and maybe important one
But no one tax base can ever solve the whoe tax issue all by itself
So we need more than that
I agree.
Maybe I haven’t thought this proposal through enough, but I find the whole idea of a ‘minimum tax rate’ for the richest in society rather abhorent. Doesn’t it rather set the precident that the average wageslave has to pay the ‘right amount of tax’, whereas the wealthiest in society (often parasites of the average wageslave) can get away with simply paying a minimum tax. Rather like those Swiss tax deals you were rightly opposed to; millionaire tax avoiders/evaders paying x% of declared income for the pivilege of keeping their cash in a secrecy jurisdiction.
The mansion tax and now this tycoon are botched half-measures intended to grab headlines and ‘save’ the Liberal Democrats from their well earned demise. Neither would be as effective as the 50p tax band (or, God forbid, a 60p tax band), a reformed council tax (along the lines of a proper 100% land valuation tax), the closing of loopholes and tackling of tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions. This government is either incompetent or corrupt; I suspect they are both, the Liberal Democrat enablers included.
Corrupt or incompetent?
I can’t be sure. i’d wish it were just incompetent.
But the evidence isn’t totally compelling
And what i do know is the alternative agenda you outline could definitely work
Heard you on R4 this morning. V impressed.
You’re put up against Matthew Sinclair time & again. Its like Spassky v Fischer or Ted “Kid” Lewis v Jack Brittain.
A point that you didn’t make, & that isn’t often made, is that high property prices have caused almost everything that was ever wrong with our country’s economy.
If an LVT raised no revenue whatsoever, if it had the effect of making people see rising property prices as a BAD rather than a GOOD thing, it would be worthwhile.
Indeed
And thanks
What’s annoying about TPA is they know nothing about tax
And don’t represent taxpayers!
I put a blog on this, vaguely, on Friday. This is something that has to be faced notably if the wealthy can now avoid paying council tax. Isn’t Nick in a family Trust as well as Dave and a few others that might come to mind?
It’s a big issue – but we have to know beneficial ownership to make it work!
The tax legislation is on line.
What’s so hard about searching for the word “domicile” & deleting it !
Suddenly, rich people will pay their share.
I am not very clear about LVT or how it would work. At present one reform I would like to see is for capital gains tax to be levied at 100% on primary residences (index linked, perhaps). To me that would go some way to tackling the attitude to housing/property which seems to have an adverse effect on everything else. Is that what is meant by LVT? If not, is there something wrong with this idea?
No, Fiona, LVT is an annual tax on land values payable by landowners. It is in effect a fee for exclusive use of part of the commons. Please take a look at our website http://www.labourland.org.
There’s nothing wrong in principle with the 100% capital gains tax idea. However in practice it only becomes due when the house is sold. So it’s easy to avoid by ensuring that the house is never sold. This can be achieved by having a limited company buy the house. From then on, ownership can be transferred by buying and selling the company instead of the house.
This is one of the reasons that an annual Land Value Tax on the potential annual rental income of the land the house stands on is far preferable to any other form of property tax.
Even the budget is going to over come that particular trick
Looking through abuse is going to become much more common in future
The golden age of corporate abuse may be drawing to a close
But there will still be capital gains to pay on the sale of the shares in the company . . .
At entrepreneur’s rate?
“4) You have to make people taxable on their personal service companies. Are you proposing that Nick? I wish you would”
They already are: IR35 rules. Why do you peddle so much misinformation?
Because we all know IR 35 does not work
Please do not peddle misinformation