Should rich people be taxed more to pay for the printing of money?

Scroll to see replies

landscape2014

So if you move money from your current account in Barclays, to your savings account in Halifax, that doesn't go via BACS (which faster payments sits under)?

If you transfer your money to any accounts in your name in a bank within the BoE's jurisdiction there is no tax liability. BACs is a faster payments system mainly used for for just that, payments. I do not have to hand the proportion of the £70 trillion pa of CHAPS transactions that are transfers between individuals' bank accounts in the UK jurisdiction (which would not attract taxation) but to suggest that high net worth individuals and organisation's accountants spend substantial amounts of money using CHAPS as an expensive money-go-round that constitutes a substantial part of CHAPS transfers seems a little fanciful.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 21

Quady

Original post by landscape2014

If you transfer your money to any accounts in your name in a bank within the BoE's jurisdiction there is no tax liability. BACs is a faster payments system mainly used for for just that, payments. I do not have to hand the proportion of the £70 trillion pa of BACS transactions that are transfers between individuals' bank accounts in the UK jurisdiction (which would not attract taxation) but to suggest that high net worth individuals and organisation's accountants spend substantial amounts of money using BACS as an expensive money-go-round that constitutes a substantial part of BACS transfers seems a little fanciful.

So you have no idea how much the tax would raise? (even if you assume payment frequency is maintained)

Most organisations move working capital into a higher interest account overnight then move it back in the morning.

Reply 22

landscape2014

Original post by Quady

About £370 billion if the published figures for 2014 are employed.

CHAPS £ 68.00 Trillion
BACS £ 4.40 Trillion
FPC £ 0.90 Trillion
C&CCC £ 0.52 Trillion
LINK £ 0.12 Trillion

TOTAL £ 73.94 Trillion p.a. 1/2 % = £ 369.7 Billion

There is no breakdown of transfers between an individual's or corporation's accounts in a bank or other UK banks but given that the five systems were set up as payment platforms can you accept that the bulk of the money transfers are not between UK accounts held by the same person. Even if half of the transfers were of that nature then a tax rate of 1% would still bring in £369.7 Billion. 1% (or nearer 1/2%) from those using the systems (those benefiting most from a stable economy) is surely more equitable than income tax and VAT rates on everybody of 20% and the onerous level of business taxes.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 23

Quady

Original post by landscape2014

is surely more equitable than income tax and VAT rates on everybody of 20% and the onerous level of business taxes.

I don't really see how a flat tax is more equitable tbh, and by definition it'd be just as onerous.

Reply 24

landscape2014

Original post by Quady

I don't really see how a flat tax is more equitable tbh, and by definition it'd be just as onerous.

I hope you can tell the difference between !% and 20%.

Reply 25

Quady

Original post by landscape2014

I hope you can tell the difference between !% and 20%.

Or my 40%, sure. But if it raises the same amount then still going to hurt just as much and disproportionately on the poor.

Reply 26

landscape2014

Original post by Quady

Or my 40%, sure. But if it raises the same amount then still going to hurt just as much and disproportionately on the poor.

Please explain how?

Reply 27

The_Mighty_Bush

Original post by Quady

Or my 40%, sure. But if it raises the same amount then still going to hurt just as much and disproportionately on the poor.

Flat tax with a negative income tax is a far fairer and simpler way of taxation and also means that the poor are supported and can have jobs at the same time.

Would make many public sector workers even more pointless as well which is great.

Reply 28

Jammy Duel

You mean the people predominantly spending money by changing figures in databasew instead of with hard cash?

The logic is poor to start with. I can have just £10 in my imaginary economy, arguably I need not print any money to operate, after all, cash is just an archaic way of representing value. Alternatively I can print 10x £1.
Now suppose I have an individual who earns £5 per unit time, and they spend it in that unit of time. If their income increases to £6 do I need to add any more money to the system? Not necessarily. Even if I increase their income above that £10 threshold there are still ways of getting around the problem of there only being £10, and that is if we do only consider using hard cash

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 29

zippity.doodah

all people should be taxed at the same percentage(s).
even if the poor and the rich paid the same %, the rich would still be paying *much* more in terms of actual money.
and I don't believe in property-based taxes; all taxation should be income-secure (e.g. if you inherit a big house but don't have a job adequate to pay for it over a long period of time)

Reply 30

landscape2014

Original post by Jammy Duel

What planet are you living on? Rory posed the question; 'should rich people be taxed more so that the cost of printing new money decreases because they use more money than the average person?' Over 97% of the money in the economy is electronic so 'your ' money is in fact the banks they just let you have it back if your account is in credit. Your possession of 'hard cash' is dependent on the confidence someone has in the purchasing power of the intrinsically worthless piece of paper you present them with.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 31

Jammy Duel

Original post by landscape2014

What planet are you living on, over 97% of the money in the economy is electronic you must be one of the few people still operating solely with physical cash.

That was the point I was making at the start, but then going on to say that even if it were all cash increased earnings dont necessitate the printing of money, I only really use cash for alcohol and getting the odd item.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

landscape2014

Original post by Quady

Or my 40%, sure. But if it raises the same amount then still going to hurt just as much and disproportionately on the poor.

Can you explain the basis of your assertion?

Reply 33

landscape2014

Original post by zippity.doodah

My proposal is to tax all payment platform transactions (except those between accounts in the same name in the UK bank system). The object is to eliminate Income tax, VAT and business taxes. Adoption would cover about half present government expenditure. This would not be the complete answer to the question of just taxation which would require the use of discriminatory taxation to control consumption to protect.future generation’s patrimony and individuals and organisations use of it. I take it from your last comments that you will be supporting the restoration at government expense of all the social housing that was available to house people who don't have a job adequate to pay for it over a long period of time. An expensive provision if your philosophy was to be equitably applied.