The FT reports this morning that:
David Cameron personally intervened in 2013 to weaken an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of trusts, creating a possible loophole that other European nations warned could be exploited by tax evaders.
The disclosure of the prime minister's resistance to opening up trusts to full scrutiny comes as he faces intense pressure to make clear whether his family stands to benefit from offshore assets linked to his late father.
The report did rather remind me of this, from a decade ago:
There seems little doubt that the government is still not talking the taxation of wealth seriously, and when inequality is an issue of massive concern in this country that is not to its credit.
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:
I also note this morning that Cameron has no plans to appoint a new climate change envoy, a role he created in the run-up to the landmark Paris climate summit.
It seems that Cameron’s commitment to addressing climate change is about as genuine as his commitment to addressing tax dodging: zero.
I thought you said you are against taxing unrealized profits for example. How can you can wealth if you don’t tax unrealized profits? Pure wealth taxes are not very common to be honest.
The main exception are property taxes (which could be argued are a form of income tax anyway). Are you arguing we should raise property taxes or change them? I think that would be a very good idea: shifting away from transaction taxes on property to more normal yearly taxes would be a big improvement I believe. It would also remove the need to know the final beneficiary at a stroke, which I think would be quite attractive…
At a low rate this is a matter of indifference on wealth
Whilst ion transfer the person making payment has by definition no further use for the property and has realised the gain
I’m going to sound like a broken record here: However how can you say the goverment is not taxing wealth seriously? For the truly super rich I would agree, however for more ordinary wealthy they are in record numbers paying IHT. Which it self is almost the highest in the world (only Japan South Korea and France more) Meanwhile since it being the nill rate being frozen 6 years ago in just Europe Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Czech republic abolished their tax. Then of course there is Canada whom just elected ‘left’ wing candidate has no made no move to introduce such a tax.
I actually argue against IHT
I argue for a wealth tax
Read my book
So to get this straight: A billionaire would be able to pass on tax free his entire net worth? But in life he would if other countries wealth tax’s are anything to go by a wealth tax of up to about 3% per year? I might add 2 countries that have Wealth Taxes also have a IHT (France being one of them). In this country we would probably end up with both(judging by the green party). What this country needs substantially lower initial rates to the current rate (even higher) for the truly super rich or the nill rate substantially higher. However from what I can tell John Mcdonnel/Corbyn not willing to cede anything (they condemned the last cut phased in over 5 years after 6 years of being frozen)
Why not read the book?
That is not what I am saying
From what I can tell: You have also for the Cgt forgiveness on death to go? The lib dems have occasionly hinted they would do the same. However they make clear IHT would stay. Even if IHT went it would still disproportionately effect those with some assets, but a truly rich individual could keep money in the bank and not pay a penny.
I would charge CGT on death, yes
So what you are proposing is actually a increase in death duties, as you would have cgt rates like income tax. So basically anyone who has even a estate worth less than the nil rate including now pay on assets that wernt the house where as now nothing would be payble. Those not particularly more than the nillrate would pay considerably more Meanwhile the better off who could pay more than things are worth would pay nothing under this policy +plus hoard cash in bank(after all cash does not ‘gain’ would equally pay nothing. This is you arguing against IHT? Unless I am missing something?
I am arguing in favouring of taxing wealth
Does anyone know of any scientific, psychological or sociological studies into the human desire for ownership and/or wealth?
It’s a peculiar thing (I thought as I was taking my dogs for a walk this morning) that we are the only species which has developed such a pathological desire to “own” things of “value” and therefore to think we have “wealth” and “power” and “prestige”. (Perhaps there are other species but I can’t think of any at the moment and we’d probably kill them off as competitors if there were?)
Why is that some people crave these things so much more than most? Is it genetic, is it in our body chemistry, is it a psychological condition, is it nature or nurture, or something else?
Perhaps we can find a way to turn off this socially divisive, environmentally destructive, obsessively competitive, free market driven, unhealthy desire in those most afflicted by it?
Followed by the rest of the seven deadly sins!
Ample
But right now I haven;’t got time to link
Much follow on from the work of Veblen
I remember the Theory of the Leisure Class from my student days, a bit dated now but I will try to find a copy and re-read. If anyone else has any suggestions for other good works it would be much appreciated.