(* such as it is, but the end terrace in Ely must be worth something, and he’s been employed by universities for long enough to have clocked up some final-salary pension entitlement)
Bongo
I understand his house is currently one CTAX band below par. Extensions typically move you up a Council Tax band but this is applied at time of sale so doesn’t affect the current owner. I’ve suggested it be applied in first year after the extension is completed to help fund adult social care and children’s scrotervices. Didn’t make it past moderation.
Grist
Given his choice of sources of income, which I assume is still tax free grants, what would Lord Pill of Ely know about the effect of tax?
I omitted the ock because I’m not sure who comprehensive the coverage of the State Censor is…
Boganboy
Because the wealthy aren’t human??
Andrew C
There is also literally no need to use the word literally.
andyf
Taxing wealth is not an easy exercise. Money held in financial institutions is easy enough but the value of chattels are only established when they are disposed. The chap the other day who thought he had $7500 of fine wine is a great small scale example as its only when he tries to sell that it’s true worth is established.
A more applicable example might be a collection of paintings. A Van Gough might raise $100 million at auction, but does this mean that a collector owning 10 is therefore a billionaire so should be taxed $41,000 for owning them for each day he visits California?
Starfish
True wealth is never taxed. Some families are sitting on billions that never exchanges hands except within the family through trusts
Passive incomes of millions are used to buy yet more assets in competition with uppity aspirants from the lower classes
Middle England is in truth competing for a minor proportion of land and property wealth, while the landed retain control over the lions share
These people of course are Labour donors so don’t expect them to be hit
Jason Lynch
Hang on a minute lads, I’ve got a great idea.
I have decided, after some deliberation, that I approve entirely of this Wealth Tax.
It has come to my attention that I possess an extraordinarily valuable objet d’art which I believe to be worth at least £250,000,000.
As a good and dutiful citizen of the Courageous State, I naturally accept that I should pay a percentage of its worth in taxes. Was it 5% that was being discussed?
However, since the artwork in question is fragile and indivisible, I am prepared to donate it in its entirety to the Exchequer, and receive in exchange a rebate of £237,500,000.
I can confirm the value of the artwork in question (titled Bag Interior, by the Colourblind Hedgehog Workshop of Sienna) by offering evidence of an agreed sale at that price, which was foiled only by the buyer having to withdraw at the last minute to… pay their wealth tax bill.
Jim
@Jason Lynch: unfortunately the UK State reserves the right to produce its own valuations of such artworks, and I suspect their valuers may not concur with yours. And the State tends to get the final say…
jgh
Wasn’t the new chancellor also mooting doing the two-decades-overdue council tax property revaluations? That will shake out people who improved the value of their property but have never sold up.
Diogenes
Denis Healey, although he held some objectionable views and imposed penal taxes on income, realised that taxing wealth was impractical. Also, Reeves and Starmer need to be advised by donkeys
Addolff
Dio, absolutely.
I have posted this here before:
“We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.”
Dennis Healey.
It won’t stop Reeves et al trying it though, because they went to uni and know all the answers.
Sebalto
Andrew C
Yep everyone I read “literally” it goes through me. Same as “bro”. Ugh.
Swannypol
superficially this appears to be incoherent gibberish. a Labour supporting acquaintance shared it. I have therefore sought clarification on his varied definitions of the term ‘borrow’
six ways to fund … 29 aug from: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
Swannypol
can any of you clever bods decrypt this Murphy for me please?
“banks do not borrow from depositors. They take deposits, and have to be able to repay, but borrowing implies a dependency and no such thing exists. So, there is no loan”
Tim Worstall
He’s really not grasped – really, he was really surprised to find this out – that a bank which does not have deposits against its loan book is bust. Deposits plus capital, by law, equals loans. Every day this must balance.
He did not know that. Now he does he denies it. Ho Hum.
Because he hasn’t had any wealth since he libelled Lord A.
Because he won’t be affected personally.
He assumes his wealth * will be exempt.
(* such as it is, but the end terrace in Ely must be worth something, and he’s been employed by universities for long enough to have clocked up some final-salary pension entitlement)
I understand his house is currently one CTAX band below par. Extensions typically move you up a Council Tax band but this is applied at time of sale so doesn’t affect the current owner. I’ve suggested it be applied in first year after the extension is completed to help fund adult social care and children’s scrotervices. Didn’t make it past moderation.
Given his choice of sources of income, which I assume is still tax free grants, what would Lord Pill of Ely know about the effect of tax?
I omitted the ock because I’m not sure who comprehensive the coverage of the State Censor is…
Because the wealthy aren’t human??
There is also literally no need to use the word literally.
Taxing wealth is not an easy exercise. Money held in financial institutions is easy enough but the value of chattels are only established when they are disposed. The chap the other day who thought he had $7500 of fine wine is a great small scale example as its only when he tries to sell that it’s true worth is established.
A more applicable example might be a collection of paintings. A Van Gough might raise $100 million at auction, but does this mean that a collector owning 10 is therefore a billionaire so should be taxed $41,000 for owning them for each day he visits California?
True wealth is never taxed. Some families are sitting on billions that never exchanges hands except within the family through trusts
Passive incomes of millions are used to buy yet more assets in competition with uppity aspirants from the lower classes
Middle England is in truth competing for a minor proportion of land and property wealth, while the landed retain control over the lions share
These people of course are Labour donors so don’t expect them to be hit
Hang on a minute lads, I’ve got a great idea.
I have decided, after some deliberation, that I approve entirely of this Wealth Tax.
It has come to my attention that I possess an extraordinarily valuable objet d’art which I believe to be worth at least £250,000,000.
As a good and dutiful citizen of the Courageous State, I naturally accept that I should pay a percentage of its worth in taxes. Was it 5% that was being discussed?
However, since the artwork in question is fragile and indivisible, I am prepared to donate it in its entirety to the Exchequer, and receive in exchange a rebate of £237,500,000.
I can confirm the value of the artwork in question (titled Bag Interior, by the Colourblind Hedgehog Workshop of Sienna) by offering evidence of an agreed sale at that price, which was foiled only by the buyer having to withdraw at the last minute to… pay their wealth tax bill.
@Jason Lynch: unfortunately the UK State reserves the right to produce its own valuations of such artworks, and I suspect their valuers may not concur with yours. And the State tends to get the final say…
Wasn’t the new chancellor also mooting doing the two-decades-overdue council tax property revaluations? That will shake out people who improved the value of their property but have never sold up.
Denis Healey, although he held some objectionable views and imposed penal taxes on income, realised that taxing wealth was impractical. Also, Reeves and Starmer need to be advised by donkeys
Dio, absolutely.
I have posted this here before:
“We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.”
Dennis Healey.
It won’t stop Reeves et al trying it though, because they went to uni and know all the answers.
Andrew C
Yep everyone I read “literally” it goes through me. Same as “bro”. Ugh.
superficially this appears to be incoherent gibberish. a Labour supporting acquaintance shared it. I have therefore sought clarification on his varied definitions of the term ‘borrow’
six ways to fund … 29 aug from:
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
can any of you clever bods decrypt this Murphy for me please?
“banks do not borrow from depositors. They take deposits, and have to be able to repay, but borrowing implies a dependency and no such thing exists. So, there is no loan”
He’s really not grasped – really, he was really surprised to find this out – that a bank which does not have deposits against its loan book is bust. Deposits plus capital, by law, equals loans. Every day this must balance.
He did not know that. Now he does he denies it. Ho Hum.