Skip to content

This is really getting fun

This recommendation proposes the reintroduction of an investment income surcharge in the UK tax system of the sort that we had until 1984. This charged an additional 15% income tax on income from unearned sources above an agreed annual limit to compensate for the fact that national insurance was not paid on that income. The current proposal is innovative by adding capital gains into this charge, which assumes that they will, as previously recommended, be taxed as the top part of income.

He wants to go to a 60% capital gains tax rate – maybe 65% – without inflation indexation.

Man’s mad.

9 thoughts on “This is really getting fun”

  1. Sorry Tim I didn’t know you were transphobic, the potato being a transeconomist. He’s an accountant but identifies as an economist/tax expert. Unfortunately he’s as convincing as an economist as Les Dawson in a dress.

  2. His history is made up. I cannot find any authority to support the contention that the 15% Investment Income Surcharge (IIS) was related to the fact that this income was not liable to NICs.

    IIS kicked in at a level only a little below the Upper Earnings Limit above which no additional NICs were payable. Unlike NICs, there were no exemptions for those above pensionable age.

    The charge would have been structured very differently if it’s purpose had been the one suggested.

  3. then all income from all sources should be treated equally for taxation purposes if horizontal tax equity is to be achieved, as is vital for the purposes of tax justice.

    What the actual F^&k is ‘Tax justice’ and who gets to arbitrate it?

    The six recommendations now made as part of the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 would, taking this latest proposal into account, raise total additional tax revenues of approximately £67.9 billion per annum.

    The likelihood that people who would potentially be subject to this charge would continue to pay it or haven’t got advisers substantially cleverer than Murphy to get round it is akin to the likelihood it’ll rain on occasion in Scotland. He honestly thinks his insights are both new and original. To call these ‘old hat’ would be being kind. I am speculating he might look at a Window Tax as one of his ‘recommendations’ and surmise ‘My methodology has proven this will raise £200 billion’ – The case for clamping down hard on sockpuppet organizations like him and Hines becomes stronger by the day. That’s where the cuts can fall – these bastards need to be ground down by any means necessary.

  4. “additional tax revenues of approximately £67.9 billion per annum.”

    Even if his figure was right (haha!) we’re squillions of pounds in debt. I doubt even the EU thinks they can tax and regulate out of this mess, though I could be wrong as they’re not notably bright.

    However, we should maybe make some sort of effort and could instead cancel HS2 and sack everybody in the public sector who has anything to do with ‘diversity’. This proposal has been rigorously peer reviewed by the voices in my head and I’m told that it would raise more than eleventy billion pounds.

  5. I vaguely recall Spud saying getting rid of the tax gap in 2014 would get you an extra £119bn in revenue, so adding the wealth report recommendations we’re well North of £200bn in revenue down now in modern money. The government, which he hates, and the next government, which he also hates, are seriously going to gain if they implement his ideas. That seems to be his argument.

    £200bn is around a month’s GDP in round numbers. Everyone being able to sit on your arse doing nothing for 30 days but enjoy yourself being serviced by dusky waitresses while olive skinned artisans repair your fences is rather appealing. But if something is too good to be true it’s ‘cos it is.

  6. “ additional tax revenues of approximately £67.9 billion per annum”
    Love the decimal point accuracy coupled with ‘approximately’. £68 billion would do, but of course it’s a made up number so it needs the decimal to show it’s been calculated and not pulled out of his fat arse.

  7. Would raise XXXX per annum???? How? Once you’ve taken away umtiddly-billion off people in year one, it’s no longer there to take off them in year two.

Leave a Reply

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