Taxing the Rich, is there really much point?

This post was started before last nights newsnight hustings, the timing seems quite appropriate now. A few thoughts on taxation....

Let me start this post by saying that I believe that the wealthiest in society, as the greatest beneficiaries of our society should also be those who contribute the most towards it's upkeep. Let me also highlight my concern that the wealth of the richest is growing far faster than that of not only the working classes, but also the middle classes.

I think that taxation has a part to play in addressing this situation, but what got me thinking recently were a couple of numbers that were brought up on the subject in the run up to the leadership (non)contest.

These are....
1) A amount estimated to be between £97bn and £150bn pounds is lost due to tax evasion each year. (Source here, I believe it was originally sourced from a leaked treasury document)
2) The LRC proposed a taxation policy with a 50% rate on earnings over £60k pa and a 60% rate on earnings of over £100K pa. This would raise a total of £14bn (Source here).

What really surprised me was the sheer amount of avoidance that goes on, based on the figures I found on the Labour Left Forum the amount of money we are talking is huge, about the same as the NHS budget, more than either the education budget or the total corporation tax reciepts.

In comparison, the £14bn that the LRC's tax increases would have raised would been insignifigant compared to the the sheer amount that is avoided. This begs the question that, if the government were to implement an LRC style tax increase, how much of that £14bn would actually reach the treasury's coffers. Such an increase would only penalise those high earners who pay their taxes rather than those who avoid them.

The argument I would put forward is that rather than imposing additional taxes, the government must first consider what steps it could take to cut down the massive amount of tax evasion that currently goes on.



Display: Sort:

Re: Taxing the Rich, is there really much point? (#1)

I'd agree with that. The government needs to clamp down on loopholes and on downright fraud when it comes to tax. I was amazed when i saw as high as £150 billion just now! That is so massive it doesn't bare thinking about.

Re: Taxing the Rich, is there really much point? (#2)

I certainly agree with more progressive taxes. However to say taxes shouldn't be increased just because the very rich could avoid them would also suggest we may as well not tax at all as people could just choose what they wanted to pay. Secondly the more you try and chase down the fraudsters the more you drive them off shore and we lose any revenue we may have got from them. I know these points may sound contradictory and to be honest I don't know what i'm suggesting. I do think we should increase taxes on high earners and stamp down on fraud, I just dont know if doing it would actually increase government revenue although i'm sure it would have beneficial effects on inequality.

Re: Taxing the Rich, is there really much point? (#3)

The answer is dead simple, reduce taxes on turnover and income and increase taxes on land values - you can't take land off-shore.

Re: Taxing the Rich, is there really much point? (#4)

You are absolutely right that tax avoidance needs to be tackled. It's not an either or, though. You can create a higher band of tax AND clamp down on avoidance. I know what you're saying - that increased taxes might lead to more evasion, but we do have very low direct taxes at the moment (and indirect taxes are much less progressive) and the placing of the highest tax band doesn't really reflect the reality of the diversity of earning in modern Britain: a higher band makes sense (as would looking at the lower end and having more tax-free earnings).

Re: Taxing the Rich, is there really much point? (#5)

I'm reading about John Smith at the moment, and he was one of the lone voices in Shadow Cabinet argueing for a 50% band rather than a 60% band for the richest before 1992. And one of the lone voices wasn't Blair...........