finneh
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,319
I agree with what you say, but I know that I am still one of those people.
You know, to be honest, I am all for a wealth tax. A nice wealth tax of.. I don't know... 1% on all wealth over £1,000,000? Sounds great. Even if it took little more than the cost to run it, as long as people didn't leave the country because of it (which they would), it would be good.
But let's imagine for a moment that no one will leave the country, and it will employ 10,000 people to enforce, and effectively bring in nothing.
1) You are reducing the gap between rich and poor. The growing gap between the top 1% and the bottom 50% is going to be a major problem in the next 20 years.
2) You are employing 10,000 people. Thats 10k new jobs, 10k people off of jobs seekers (maybe), etc.
It doesnt work in practice, but in theory, it's great.
I think everyone is to some degree one of those people, I myself find myself thinking the bedroom tax makes sense but often have to snap out of it and think: it only makes sense if it raises a good amount of cash; why cause unnecessary pain and grief for very little gain? Agreed a wealth tax would be fine in theory, but as you say wouldn't really achieve anything.
Even as a business owner myself I would prefer to see a turnover tax. Forget taxable profits whereby a company can turnover £50b and reduce their tax liabilities to £500k; tax them at the source, their unmanipulatable turnover. I read that companies in the UK turnover over £3.5 trillion a year vs the c. £51b they pay in corporation tax, that works out at less than 1.5% of turnover being taxed.
What's the betting that smaller companies end up paying far more than 1.5% of their turnover in the form of corporation tax, whereas larger companies are paying much, much less? I remember a statistic saying Starbucks had paid around £8.5m corporation tax in over 15 years on a turnover over £5b. That can't be right.