The government to take 10% off any savings over 50,000 pounds.

Watch
Poll: Should the government introduce a 10% levy on 50k+ savings?
Yes (5)
7.94%
No (58)
92.06%
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 days ago
#61
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
Wealth redistribution happens in almost all capitalist societies. That's why we have progressive taxation. There's more wealth redistribution under capitalism because wealth is not distributed equally. There isn't much of a need for it under communism. Technically there isn't any need for it.
Yes, exactly, the government is issuing bonds and will have to pay interest and pay it back. Probs next year this time we're going to hear the good old 'we have to live within in our means' argument and the tories will scrap what little is left of our welfare system to pay back the debt they've accumulated. BoJo will probably proceed with his plans to reduce the 45p top tax threshold to 40p, just like Cameron did with the 50p tax, they're going to pay this money back targeting the most vulnerable in society.
Oh noes they will make the people of the country pay the debt of the people of the country 🤪 the horror.

All that has happened in the last decade is ever increasing debt as we have had a deficit so we haven’t lived within our means in the last ten years.
0
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#62
(Original post by Napp)
It is the literal definition of theft...
Because taxation is a generally accepted part of society, filching peoples savings is not..
The state has many easier ways of generating cash from the simple old printing press upwards.

Extremely debatable.
Bigger question is why do you think pilfering peoples savings will actually generate a particularly large amount of money quickly? As opposed to most simply spending/moving their money away from the government - something that i will personally guarantee will happen.
Of course this is ignoring the basic facts of people taking serious umbrage with paying tax and then having money theyve already been taxed on expropriated. Given that such blatantly thievery has never been a part of the states armoury, not even during the world wars - what makes you think people will tolerate it now?
1. I'm all for a reasoned and balanced debate. I think you have a fair point where you say the government shouldn't take more from the money that people have already been taxed. It is breaking a promise and does impact people's trust. I can understand that people may get pissed off for having to pay more than they were promised they'd have. But, in this case, something unexpected has happened, as a result of which millions of people who were already on low income lost their jobs. Now does the urgency of this cause constitute a reasonable ground to break a promise? I think yes but it's a delicate question, I fully that it is.

2. Where you 'printing press' did you mean the government should just print money? If so, I'm sure you know that will cause inflation and currency devaluation almost immediately and it won't be so effective.

3. I think the worry with people moving/withdrawing their money from the bank is easy to address. The banks will either close or limit people's access to their deposits until the parliament debates the proposal. Ofc, this should be done as quickly as possible.

4. Are you sure that a levy on savings has never happened before? I thought it happened in Germany after the WW1 but I'm not sure now. The governments were preparing for war years before it happened. Also, they expected the war to go on for years so they increased taxes to have a long-term flow of income. The coronavirus crisis is likely to end in 9-12 months and will get better over time (at least that's what expect; I'm inclined to trust the government and scientist since i have zero expertise in this epidemiology).
0
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#63
(Original post by paul514)
Oh noes they will make the people of the country pay the debt of the people of the country 🤪 the horror.

All that has happened in the last decade is ever increasing debt as we have had a deficit so we haven’t lived within our means in the last ten years.
Last time they reduced the top tax threshold by 5% whilst they cut down on social services and privatised the NHS. What I said was that they don't make the people pay the debt but the poor.
0
reply
Parties
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 days ago
#64
Savings are not the same as income.
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 days ago
#65
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
1. I'm all for a reasoned and balanced debate. I think you have a fair point where you say the government shouldn't take more from the money that people have already been taxed. It is breaking a promise and does impact people's trust. I can understand that people may get pissed off for having to pay more than they were promised they'd have. But, in this case, something unexpected has happened, as a result of which millions of people who were already on low income lost their jobs. Now does the urgency of this cause constitute a reasonable ground to break a promise? I think yes but it's a delicate question, I fully that it is.
I'm not sure i'd call it unexpected. People might well have been unprepared for it but pandemics are as old as time.
Indeed it might well be a just cause to break a promise for, however, it is not the governments place to 'promise' not to pilfer peoples money (taxes aside).
2. Where you 'printing press' did you mean the government should just print money? If so, I'm sure you know that will cause inflation and currency devaluation almost immediately and it won't be so effective.
Not in the most literal sense but giving out cheques to the population is a tried means of keeping the economy going along (although of questionable success) it is far from without precdent with several countries toying with the idea.
However, i would be somewhat surprised if the BoE couldnt reconcile pumping liquidity into the economy without causing runaway inflation - after all it has been doing this for some time now.
Lastly, as one said, there are many other ways of injecting cashing cash into the economy other than literally printing sterling. Indeed, there are several interesting articles on the matter in the Economist.
3. I think the worry with people moving/withdrawing their money from the bank is easy to address. The banks will either close or limit people's access to their deposits until the parliament debates the proposal. Ofc, this should be done as quickly as possible.
You're not making your idea sound any better by suggesting banks take all of peoples savings. At any rate, i rather doubt the feasibility of this, aside from the fact that would topple the financial system most people with savings of that order dont have them in cash assets but in various investments not necessarily held with a bank.
4. Are you sure that a levy on savings has never happened before? I thought it happened in Germany after the WW1 but I'm not sure now. The governments were preparing for war years before it happened. Also, they expected the war to go on for years so they increased taxes to have a long-term flow of income. The coronavirus crisis is likely to end in 9-12 months and will get better over time (at least that's what expect; I'm inclined to trust the government and scientist since i have zero expertise in this epidemiology).
It might well have i was more talking about the UK, although i admit i could be wrong on that count.
0
reply
Other_Owl
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 days ago
#66
Government could easily make more money by ensure the rich pay FULL tax but the issue is that who the Tories only care about. Shame.
0
reply
Bio 7
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 days ago
#67
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
yes yes, we need more intelligent people like you who can give such intelligent and thoughtful answers.
Like your idea to steal people’s savings?
1
reply
Bio 7
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 days ago
#68
(Original post by garymckaey)
Well humanity already steals billions of animals lives each year.
Wasn’t expecting that on this thread.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 days ago
#69
I'm with you in general terms...

We do need to have a real think about how best to spread the cost of this crisis. Last time we cut our costs back afterwards, but this time we don't have much more to cut.. so its likely going to come from people paying more once this is done. Then its just a question of how?

Where I disagree is that your threshold would include taking money off a lot of people who aren't rich, but have been saving for a purpose, or elderly who live off the savings they accumulated during their many years working.

Your on the right lines that we are going to have to pay for this crisis (the people, not the government), and that it should be done in a fair way... but your not really onto the right solution.
1
reply
Neurocandid
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 days ago
#70
Just NO, No No No
1
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 days ago
#71
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
For a piece of **** like you to vilify them like that. One day people will see you for what you are - a piece of ****.
That's not very caring-sharing, is it comrade?
0
reply
Mustafa0605
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 days ago
#72
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
This is an important point. A lot of people argued that this is theft. I don't think it is. Firstly, as I said these are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. When wars happen, one usual fiscal move is to increase taxation and as a result, people will have less in saving after a while. Why is this so different? It just gives the state speedier access to resources and is the more appropriate move in this case.
Secondly, the amount of money you have is most likely because of the social system you live in. If you lived in a society where taxes were higher, wages were higher or there was a tax on inheritance you would have had less in savings. Society giveth and society taketh away. I know it's a controversial point, the right to private property is a big argument in philosophy, but i think society can place justifiable demands on people's 'property '. The reason why the state is reluctant to do that is more prudential than moral, as another user pointed, it can reduce confidence in the banking system (along with other reasons). But I don't think this will be case because people can surely understand the urgency of the matter, and would understand that this only happen under dire circumstances.
Are you stupid? The government is already paying 80% of salaries for those that had work and can’t work now due to coronavirus. The government is also paying benefits for those who never had work. The government even will deliver food and supplies to the vulnerable that are self isolating with nobody to look after them. You can’t tax people’s savings, hard earned money. They would just withdraw it and hide it at home or send it somewhere else. If you want to help you can volunteer or donate. If not you sit at home and stop being so silly online.
1
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 days ago
#73
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
Last time they reduced the top tax threshold by 5% whilst they cut down on social services and privatised the NHS. What I said was that they don't make the people pay the debt but the poor.
They don’t make anyone pay the debt they have run a deficit every year
0
reply
KNOWYOURRIGHTS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 days ago
#74
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
I think there are many practical solutions to help with the crisis we are facing at the moment. People are losing their jobs and many are struggling with some of their most basic needs to be met. I think it is now time for some more radical measures. People who are very well off NEED to share some of the burdens that the nation is facing. A 10% levy on savings over 30-50k seems like a reasonable step to take.
What do you think?
Should it not be the people behind this plannedemic who should pay? I.E. the Rothschild conglomerate. They have a combined wealth of trillions.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 days ago
#75
Absolutely not.
1
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#76
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
We do need to have a real think about how best to spread the cost of this crisis.
Exactly, that's what I keep trying to say. I don't want the poor and most vulnerable in society to have to pay for the cost of the crisis. Last time, when the banks messed up, the government bailed them out and took from social service and welfare to pay for it. Cutting down on the taxes for the very rich was the cherry on top. Does this sound fair to anyone?
However the way they're going to get the money, it shouldn't come from the hands of hard-working people in this country.
0
reply
Onde
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 days ago
#77
A wealth tax would make more sense than a savings tax.
1
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 14 hours ago
#78
The word you're looking for is ”theft”.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#79
Report 14 hours ago
#79
In seriousness, if this happened people would start dodging tax on a massive scale. No income tax would get paid, people would put their savings in shoeboxes rather than banks, investors would leave the country - the economy would basically die.
1
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 14 hours ago
#80
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
In seriousness, if this happened people would start dodging tax on a massive scale. No income tax would get paid, people would put their savings in shoeboxes rather than banks, investors would leave the country - the economy would basically die.
Pretty much, there would be a collapse of the banks almost overnight as folk scrambled to withdraw savings, and if it's anything like 2008 people then get v worried when the bank has to tell them that's not 100% possible. Any attempt to legislate restrictions would just snowball panic and anger.

What's even the point in raiding savings if doing so cripples the system you would use to distribute and handle this money?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (104)
60.47%
No (68)
39.53%

Watched Threads

View All