Err?

if the increase in capital value was considered to be income (as it is)

Why are we even distinguishing between income and capital value if they’re both the same thing?

As it us, almost every firm of income from wealth is taxed less and enjoys more reliefs and allowances than income from work does. That is, straightforwardly, wrong.

An actual economist would go read about tax theory. Even, possibly, be aware of the bloke who gained his Nobel for explaining why we want to tax capital – and the income from capital – less than labour incomes.

But then that would mean knowing something about economics of course…..

10 thoughts on “Err?”

  1. So Murphy thinks I can just go out and spend the nominal increase in the valuation (as distinct from value) of my house? Maybe he is getting a commission from the sharks who sell “lifetime mortgages” at high interest rates?

  2. As I’ve said before, I have no time at all for Murph’s desire to tax me out of the old family home. He can just fuck off.

  3. @NoelScoper: The endgame will probably consist of the P³ shouting at himself in the mirror, until he headbutts it to prevent his reflection replying.

  4. He’s been babbling about this for years (if not more than a decade) -it’s a pet hobby horse no amount of counter-argument will dislodge him from. for the commentators above, I think given his desire to expropriate private pensions to invest in his pet ‘green New Deal’ he alights on property as the next asset class he can look to ‘deploy for the greater good’ or ‘the benefit of society’

    Fortunately his oratorical skills and general appeal are rather less impressive than his Austrian predecessor from the 1920s.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    “So Murphy thinks I can just go out and spend the nominal increase in the valuation (as distinct from value) of my house? Maybe he is getting a commission from the sharks who sell “lifetime mortgages” at high interest rates?”

    To be fair, a large amount of that went on in the ’80s and ’90s with people re-mortgaging to buy cars and holidays. I suspect we’re going to see it again given the raises in house prices that we are experiencing.

  6. This blog is already long. I am well aware that some will never talk to me again for writing it. Candidly, I do not care.

    Pilgrim Slight Return says:
    July 12 2021 at 8:11 am
    I feel you frustration believe you me.

    Oh, praise be – it’s back; I’d been missing “candidly”

  7. @ BiND
    Yes, so their cars wore out before they had paid for them through the mortgage and both those and the holidays cost them more than twice the list price. If you throw in a 32%-47% tax the car/holiday costs more than three times the list price.

  8. He’s been babbling about this for years (if not more than a decade) -it’s a pet hobby horse no amount of counter-argument will dislodge him from.

    He’ll be especially bitter, then, that our elites have exactly this in mind for us, and that he’ll be left uncredited in an end terrace.

    https://themonograph.net/?p=2714
    G20 ministers endorse carbon pricing to help tackle climate change

    Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, called for a total overhaul of financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. “When it comes to unlocking fiduciary assets, pension fund assets and asset owner capital, we need to rethink the role of these institutions. We need to rethink their model,” Fink said, referring to the World Bank and the IMF. The two institutions operated on an outdated system that was “created more than 80 years ago”, Fink added. “We need a financing system that isn’t built around bank balance sheets, but one that is built to build to attract more capital into sustainable investments.”

    Tim gets to see his carbon tax and Richie gets to see his green new deal. Wankery and world government all around.
    It isn’t a conspiracy theory when they’re telling you what they’re doing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *