Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 14:43:35 GMT
I think we should be moving to tax both land and excessive property values. The rich might be able to move themselves, their company HQs or their money offshore. But they cannot physically relocate any of the land they own here nor their UK property portfolios. A land value tax is the way to go. If companies lease or rent land and buildings they occupy and do business from, who pays what tax?
Corporations will go to where it's best for their bottom line. Countries and states will adjust their company law and tax rules to attract business and generating income.
For instance, there are reasons why over 65% of Fortune 500 companies and over half of all US publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware — friendly company law and tax regime...
Any modest tax on land value or high worth properties would of course be charged to the owners of that land or property. Those who lease it out to others of course may choose to pass these costs onto their tenants if they can. Though of course we could exempt land that is in productive use for farming as well as commercial properties leased to productive businesses. And also directly owned land or commercial property used for such purposes. Such exemptions are at least options for consideration. But what constitutes a full farming business, and what constitutes a wealthy estate with a couple of cows in a field somewhere just to avoid the tax would need to be very carefully defined, because there would be potential loopholes aplenty. This is why - although it makes much more sense if we are going to tax wealth at all to tax those parts of it which cannot physically be removed from the country or hidden - such a land value tax needs deeper expert consideration than any of us on here are capable of. If you think a land value tax is a non-starter, what better alternatives for taxing wealth do you think we should adopt instead? And if you think we shouldn't be taxing wealth at all, why not? And what alternative means of raising the necessary revenues to fix broken Britain would you suggest? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 30, 2023 15:01:55 GMT
Well, that was a little flurry, how does any of that make the people you vote for as representing you stop any of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 30, 2023 15:29:50 GMT
That's what I would do. That and remove stupid tax dodges that pay fees to a HQ in a tax haven. How do you mean pay fees? Do you mean one company say registered in the UK pay billions to the same company they own in say the Virgin Islands as a legitimate payment where it is taxed at zero? Which International trade agreement has that written in it? Yep that's it. I think it was Starbucks that were paying millions every year to a company in the Cayman islands for the copyright of the Starbucks signs. They aren't written into trade agreements, they just aren't written out. So if a trade agreement allows Chateau Bormont to sell Champagne in the UK, we have no say in how much profit they claim they didn't make because they pay a man in Colombia £80m a year to taste test their wine. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 30, 2023 15:31:37 GMT
imho the 'problem' is caused by taxing profits rather than something more rational. Redistributive blinders are cornering us Of course the main sales tax is VAT, but the issue I have with that is its not progressive, you could be losing money and still you have to pay VAT. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 30, 2023 15:36:12 GMT
SRB,
The real trouble with the LVT (land value tax) proposal is a political one. It's not that it is unworkable or politically impossible to implement, but that its benefits appear untraceably in the broad health of the economy rather than in some traceable gift given by a benefactor. How do you convince people to keep the tax when it looks to all the world like its benefits are coming from elsewhere (indeed from everywhere else)? To have and keep an LVT, you would need an economically literate population. That's a very unlikely circumstance given the size of the vested interest involved.
For them to win all that's needed is to keep people dumb. For us to win, we would need a miracle.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 30, 2023 15:36:50 GMT
If companies lease or rent land and buildings they occupy and do business from, who pays what tax?
Corporations will go to where it's best for their bottom line. Countries and states will adjust their company law and tax rules to attract business and generating income.
For instance, there are reasons why over 65% of Fortune 500 companies and over half of all US publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware — friendly company law and tax regime...
Any modest tax on land value or high worth properties would of course be charged to the owners of that land or property. Those who lease it out to others of course may choose to pass these costs onto their tenants if they can. Though of course we could exempt land that is in productive use for farming as well as commercial properties leased to productive businesses. And also directly owned land or commercial property used for such purposes. Such exemptions are at least options for consideration. But what constitutes a full farming business, and what constitutes a wealthy estate with a couple of cows in a field somewhere just to avoid the tax would need to be very carefully defined, because there would be potential loopholes aplenty. This is why - although it makes much more sense if we are going to tax wealth at all to tax those parts of it which cannot physically be removed from the country or hidden - such a land value tax needs deeper expert consideration than any of us on here are capable of. If you think a land value tax is a non-starter, what better alternatives for taxing wealth do you think we should adopt instead? And if you think we shouldn't be taxing wealth at all, why not? And what alternative means of raising the necessary revenues to fix broken Britain would you suggest? These type of costs are already passed on, but the main advantage of your idea would be to tax the vast areas of land owned by the mega rich and used for nothing or just for private enjoyment. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 30, 2023 16:31:24 GMT
If companies lease or rent land and buildings they occupy and do business from, who pays what tax?
Corporations will go to where it's best for their bottom line. Countries and states will adjust their company law and tax rules to attract business and generating income.
For instance, there are reasons why over 65% of Fortune 500 companies and over half of all US publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware — friendly company law and tax regime...
Any modest tax on land value or high worth properties would of course be charged to the owners of that land or property. Those who lease it out to others of course may choose to pass these costs onto their tenants if they can. Though of course we could exempt land that is in productive use for farming as well as commercial properties leased to productive businesses. And also directly owned land or commercial property used for such purposes. Such exemptions are at least options for consideration. But what constitutes a full farming business, and what constitutes a wealthy estate with a couple of cows in a field somewhere just to avoid the tax would need to be very carefully defined, because there would be potential loopholes aplenty. This is why - although it makes much more sense if we are going to tax wealth at all to tax those parts of it which cannot physically be removed from the country or hidden - such a land value tax needs deeper expert consideration than any of us on here are capable of. If you think a land value tax is a non-starter, what better alternatives for taxing wealth do you think we should adopt instead? And if you think we shouldn't be taxing wealth at all, why not? And what alternative means of raising the necessary revenues to fix broken Britain would you suggest?I'm not totally against an LVT but how much do you want to raise the tax burden by?. We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 and instead of keeping increasing it why not look at cutting the vast amount of public spending?. For example we have a desperate shortage of workers and yet we have 5 million on out-of-work welfare handouts - we have created a welfare system where in many cases it pays not to work. Instead of simply increasing taxation to expand public spending how about reforming the system to reduce the demand on public spending? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 30, 2023 17:13:46 GMT
How do you mean pay fees? Do you mean one company say registered in the UK pay billions to the same company they own in say the Virgin Islands as a legitimate payment where it is taxed at zero? Which International trade agreement has that written in it? Yep that's it. I think it was Starbucks that were paying millions every year to a company in the Cayman islands for the copyright of the Starbucks signs. They aren't written into trade agreements, they just aren't written out. So if a trade agreement allows Chateau Bormont to sell Champagne in the UK, we have no say in how much profit they claim they didn't make because they pay a man in Colombia £80m a year to taste test their wine. So we wouldn't be breaking any International trade agreements, another red herring. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 30, 2023 17:49:56 GMT
Any modest tax on land value or high worth properties would of course be charged to the owners of that land or property. Those who lease it out to others of course may choose to pass these costs onto their tenants if they can. Though of course we could exempt land that is in productive use for farming as well as commercial properties leased to productive businesses. And also directly owned land or commercial property used for such purposes. Such exemptions are at least options for consideration. But what constitutes a full farming business, and what constitutes a wealthy estate with a couple of cows in a field somewhere just to avoid the tax would need to be very carefully defined, because there would be potential loopholes aplenty. This is why - although it makes much more sense if we are going to tax wealth at all to tax those parts of it which cannot physically be removed from the country or hidden - such a land value tax needs deeper expert consideration than any of us on here are capable of. If you think a land value tax is a non-starter, what better alternatives for taxing wealth do you think we should adopt instead? And if you think we shouldn't be taxing wealth at all, why not? And what alternative means of raising the necessary revenues to fix broken Britain would you suggest?I'm not totally against an LVT but how much do you want to raise the tax burden by?. We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 and instead of keeping increasing it why not look at cutting the vast amount of public spending?. For example we have a desperate shortage of workers and yet we have 5 million on out-of-work welfare handouts - we have created a welfare system where in many cases it pays not to work. Instead of simply increasing taxation to expand public spending how about reforming the system to reduce the demand on public spending? We still fall behind many in Europe Our tax burden reflects the amount the NHS costs, I have never received a satisfactory answer from you as to what services you would cut beyond the microscopic saving on diversity managers and rainbow crossings. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 30, 2023 17:55:58 GMT
Yep that's it. I think it was Starbucks that were paying millions every year to a company in the Cayman islands for the copyright of the Starbucks signs. They aren't written into trade agreements, they just aren't written out. So if a trade agreement allows Chateau Bormont to sell Champagne in the UK, we have no say in how much profit they claim they didn't make because they pay a man in Colombia £80m a year to taste test their wine. So we wouldn't be breaking any International trade agreements, another red herring. I feel you've missed the point. We cannot demand Chateau Bormont pays the tax on their real profit, because we have no right to say they shouldn't pay £80m to their expert in Colombia |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 18:28:55 GMT
Any modest tax on land value or high worth properties would of course be charged to the owners of that land or property. Those who lease it out to others of course may choose to pass these costs onto their tenants if they can. Though of course we could exempt land that is in productive use for farming as well as commercial properties leased to productive businesses. And also directly owned land or commercial property used for such purposes. Such exemptions are at least options for consideration. But what constitutes a full farming business, and what constitutes a wealthy estate with a couple of cows in a field somewhere just to avoid the tax would need to be very carefully defined, because there would be potential loopholes aplenty. This is why - although it makes much more sense if we are going to tax wealth at all to tax those parts of it which cannot physically be removed from the country or hidden - such a land value tax needs deeper expert consideration than any of us on here are capable of. If you think a land value tax is a non-starter, what better alternatives for taxing wealth do you think we should adopt instead? And if you think we shouldn't be taxing wealth at all, why not? And what alternative means of raising the necessary revenues to fix broken Britain would you suggest?I'm not totally against an LVT but how much do you want to raise the tax burden by?. We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 and instead of keeping increasing it why not look at cutting the vast amount of public spending?. For example we have a desperate shortage of workers and yet we have 5 million on out-of-work welfare handouts - we have created a welfare system where in many cases it pays not to work. Instead of simply increasing taxation to expand public spending how about reforming the system to reduce the demand on public spending? The problem with cutting public spending is that it has already been slashed to the bone in the years of austerity - to the point where nothing seems to work anymore - and yet the national debt remains at record levels and is indeed much larger whilst our tax burden is higher than at any time since the war. Is it not legitimate to wonder where all the bloody money is going? And another statistic I have heard, which I have not researched so by all means correct me if I am wrong, is that in the last 12 months alone, the billionaires in this country alone have collectively increased their wealth by enough to give every adult in this country £10k each!!!. Perhaps we need these people to pay a little more to fix all that is broken, whilst any tax cuts should be focussed upon those productively working. In particular the planned freezing of tax thresholds year after year is obviously going to undo much of the good done by the Tory raising of the basic rate thresholds, resulting in many of those low paid workers being clobbered again, whilst as many as one on five earners end up paying the 40p rate, in conception supposedly a rate only for the very well off. Rather than raising taxes by stealth in this very regressive form, how about raising the same revenue via a Land Value Tax instead? And increasing thresholds at all levels in line with inflation? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 30, 2023 18:41:05 GMT
Typically LVT is presented as a replacement for current taxation, not as an addition.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 30, 2023 18:44:12 GMT
I'm not totally against an LVT but how much do you want to raise the tax burden by?. We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 and instead of keeping increasing it why not look at cutting the vast amount of public spending?. For example we have a desperate shortage of workers and yet we have 5 million on out-of-work welfare handouts - we have created a welfare system where in many cases it pays not to work. Instead of simply increasing taxation to expand public spending how about reforming the system to reduce the demand on public spending? The problem with cutting public spending is that it has already been slashed to the bone in the years of austerity - to the point where nothing seems to work anymore - and yet the national debt remains at record levels and is indeed much larger whilst our tax burden is higher than at any time since the war. Is it not legitimate to wonder where all the bloody money is going? And another statistic I have heard, which I have not researched so by all means correct me if I am wrong, is that in the last 12 months alone, the billionaires in this country alone have collectively increased their wealth by enough to give every adult in this country £10k each!!!. Perhaps we need these people to pay a little more to fix all that is broken, whilst any tax cuts should be focussed upon those productively working. In particular the planned freezing of tax thresholds year after year is obviously going to undo much of the good done by the Tory raising of the basic rate thresholds, resulting in many of those low paid workers being clobbered again, whilst as many as one on five earners end up paying the 40p rate, in conception supposedly a rate only for the very well off. Rather than raising taxes by stealth in this very regressive form, how about raising the same revenue via a Land Value Tax instead? And increasing thresholds at all levels in line with inflation? I might have to stop posting if you keep saying my words for me. 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 30, 2023 18:53:38 GMT
slashed to the bone lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 19:04:15 GMT
Typically LVT is presented as a replacement for current taxation, not as an addition. Our tax burden as a proportion of GDP is substantially lower than that for a number of other successful economies. So it is not written in stone that the burden of overall taxation is too high, or is as high as it should be allowed to be. And it is certainly true that our public services have been devastated by cuts without any apparent decline in overall taxation, suggesting an imbalance somewhere, and suggesting that someone somewhere is benefitting at our expense. And the evidence tends to point to the super rich as the main beneficiaries. Under these circumstances it is not unreasonable to tax these a little more to repair our public services. But even if we refrain from using this as an additional tax, a replacement of tax raised by the freezing of thresholds would surely be a positive step. Raise thresholds in line with inflation and use a Land Value Tax to replace the funds not being leeched out of ordinary working people anymore. |
|
