the TUC says the public won't stomach the cuts because they are regressive, unfair and let the rich off the hook

[harpsichordcarrier]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11276452

a little poll-tax style civil disobedience?
can you anticipate this happening?
can you anticipate joining in?

I don't have all the IFS figures - if you could provide a link to the report that would be helpful......but absolutely I am suggesting that there are many many tax avoidance lines of revenue that are ignored.

But how anyone can say that the top 10% are sharing the pain because they have 'suffered' a 4% drop in income is a joke.

The people in the bottom 10% don't have a 5% drop in income cushion. They will have to make very drastic survival decisions. That is what is not fair.

I quite like the idea from Glasgow Media Group for the one-off tax. If the deficit problem is so very immediate as is claimed, it calls for desperate measures, and this would be quick and painless (for all)

www.glasgowmediagroup.org/

That's my experience Beeta - the super rich are able to sort themselves out but the bankers/lawyers etc earning under half a squid are all pretty much paying their taxes.

And anything over 50% hurts like hell.

Lady B - I was referring to my link earlier. The only way the top 10% could be 4% worse off - is due to the tax changes.

You might not agree that an income drop of 4% is enough - but the OP implied they were 'off the hook'! And I was pointing out that it was a greater drop than 80% of the population are experiencing.

The unions seem to be living in lala land. Where do they think the money is coming from? There are not enough "rich" people to raise much money from increasing taxation solely for them. Plus, how much do the TUC think they should be taxed? 70%? 90%? If taxation rates go too high, people stop bothering to earn more money.

We need to increase the wealth creating sector of the economy - which is business, and in particular small businesses, by reducing Corporation Tax, and overhauling the iniquitous business rates system. Reducing red tape would also help here.

In the meantime, the public sector needs to become leaner. Everyone can furnish examples of dubious public expenditure from their own experience. Managers in the public sector need to be rigorous in rooting it out. Alot are too complacent: "Oh, I've got the budget for it, so I can spend it" rather than "do I really need this?"

It should also be as easy to sack incompetent public sector workers as it is in the private sector, without the interference of the unions. The public sector can't afford to carry dead weight any more.

Not enough rich people ??

"The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt. It is mostly concentrated at the top, so the richest 10% own £4,000bn, with an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%. The wealthiest hold the bulk of their money in property or pensions, and some in financial assets and objects such antiques and paintings."

The only way the richer could be 4% worse off is by taxation? Er, no. There are many reasons - property prices, share prices, or how about them creaming money off public sector contracts which have reduced now?

My local council is cutting wages, the persons earning under £16000 per year are the worst hit with an average 5% pay cut, then the next band is hit - but now a badly as the lower paid workers - this will save half a million per year

then there are 7 wages at the top of the scale earning over £1million per year between them, thats 7 men

if you got ride of three men - oh the saings each year - but no cut at the bottom and leave the heavey heads at the top

can you really tell me that that is fair?

Of course public sector earn more than private, with wages at the top like they are

LadyB - the chart I liked to is entitled:

"The Effect of Tax and Benefit Reforms introduced 2010 -2014"

I think the total UK personal worth figure you quote includes people like Roman Abramovich (the oil and industry magnate and owner of Chelsea FC, worth £7.4bn). Can you see him handing a significant slice over pay off our debt?

Oops - linked to

BBC article on IFS report Chart half way down.

Thinking about it - a great slug of the country's personal wealth probably is our national debt.

Our money (pension funds, savings) invested in government bonds.

And wealth doesn't sit around doing nothing. It's invested in businesses, property, and financial markets.

You can tax income and profits - but taxing wealth is pretty tricky. And governments tend to avoid it.

Most of the wealth is in property.

We hardly tax property at all. Do any of you homeowners expect to pay capital gains tax on your houses? I do not own a house, never have, but I pay capital gains tax on the capital gains I make on shares. I invest in productive businesses and pay rent out of the profits I make as well as on the dividends.

No wonder people just went on a binge of buying doing up and flipping property for the last decade rather than investing in proper businesses.

Before anyone starts shouting about taxing the rich how about taxing profits on buying and selling houses? They should be taxed at 28% like every other capital gain. The older homeowners, especially, have walked off with huge amounts of untaxed wealth. It has been the cause of the biggest distortion of our economy after The City.

You don't pay CTG on your main dwelling but you do if you are buying and selling houses solely for investment purposes. There is stamp duty and legal fees to be paid every time a house changes hands which is a disincentive. House values dropped sharply early nineties and again in the last 2 years - so property investment hardly a 'dead cert'. Mortgage tax relief was abolished a long time ago and interest rates mean that the total amount of cash paid to buy a house is often double or treble the original value. When you die the house becomes part of your estate and the price of the average home these days means the value is subject to death duties.

Rather than taxing the profit on buying property the answer would appear to be building more homes... making property more affordable.

I am talking about imposng capital gains tax on all property capital gains including principle residences that people live in. It would stop the massive distortion and misallocation of capital in our economy.

Silly me. Taxing houses. Too politically sensitive. As you were. Funny how no one mentions taxing houses - not even the unions. Why? Its simple nearly everyone owns a house.

No investment is dead cert but a tax free investment supported is surely the next best thing and that is what housing is.

If the Govt wanted to get serious on tackling the deficit it should tax housing wealth. Its where the money is but oh dear no we cant have baby boomers with massive unearned housing wealth being taxed. We have to tax young people on their meagre earnigs and hammer them with a special graduate tax if they bother to go to university. Just so the baby bomers can keep their massive pensions and unearned housing wealth.

We do not need more houses built, we just need large family houses with 1 old person living in them as a tax shelter to sell them to young people who really need them. Its mad.

"Rather than taxing the profit on buying property the answer would appear to be building more homes... making property more affordable."

You got there first Chil. It's the scarcity of property in this country, which inflates house prices, and leads to massive distortions in the economy. In particular the high cost of living in the south east. I can't see how CGT helps that. Tbh stamp duty is enough to put us off moving to a bigger house.

Property is not expensive because there is ashortage. The only time there was a shortage was after WWII when many houses had been bombed. Prices rocketed after WWII and then crashed as new hosues were built.

Now there is an artificial shortage because housing has bcome a 'cornered' market where older people hoard property they do not actually need to live in.

Think about it. How many older people with no kids own a house with 3, 4, 5 or more bedrooms? How many own a second holiday home? How many own multiple buy-to-let properties?

If all those older home owners ('baby boomers') sitting in houses went into flats or retirement homes, sold off their second holiday home and their buy to let portfolios there would be a massive glut of property.

The shortage is entirely artificial.

"Think about it. How many older people with no kids own a house with 3, 4, 5 or more bedrooms"

Beenbeta -

Perhaps you should tell us. I have no idea. I only know of one, and I don't see how making her liable for CGT would make her sell. I know why she stays - she loves her garden. And when she dies her estate will be liable for death duty. For her selling her house and giving some money to her family, would make more financial sense.

Think about it. How many older people with no kids own a house with 3, 4, 5 or more bedrooms? How many own a second holiday home? How many own multiple buy-to-let properties?

Eventually all the money in the world will be no good to them which is why you need to encourage your children into professions that the elderly will need and your children can charge them a premium for, it's the only way to balance things out again.

I would get rid of IHT and charge CGT on death. If we had that CGT on 100% of all gains on housing. No allowances. Old people would have no incentive to hang on to property as a tax shelter. It would also have stopped the housing bubble in its tracks. Leveraging up (i.e borrowing) against untaxed gains was the fuel that powered the housing market. It has nearly ruined the UK and most of the Western World.

The trouble is BB [ensions have been raided, if you start taxing people on their main residential property where is the incentive to save ?
My MIL is wetting her pants because DH and I have no assets left after various crisis and expects me to be stressed when the fact is i shall be as looked after in my old age as the person who has been very prudent as things stand.

erm BB i thought the Subprime market in the US was the cause of the current financial malaise. Silly me.

Over borrowing against houses (which were massively tax incentivised) was the cause of the subprme crisis.

Buying houses on 10 xe multiples of salary is not saving and investing - that was the biggest lie of the whole bubble of the last decade.

Beenbeta. CGT on death wouldn't have resolved the housing bubble and wouldn't have impacted on overborrowing. Old people are not hanging onto their houses as a 'tax shelter'... if anything they are treating the value of their homes as the insurance against future care-home costs.

And what exactly is the 'massive tax incentive' you talk about with regard to borrowing and houses? There is no tax relief on mortgages any more... MIRAS is a thing of the past.

Chil - I mean people should pay CGT whenever they sell a house. If they die the house is treated as if sold and taxed accordingly.

Edgar - I was talking about the US where there are tax incentives that allow interest to be offset against taxable income like the old MIRAS in the UK. Even mortgage rates themselves are subsidised through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Curently there are also a massive tax incentive to owning a house in the UK as well, namely the zero CGT on capital gains. Even IHT has a very generous allowance that means most people pay no IHT on their estate.

Up until very recently even holiday home and buy-to-let owners had tax incentives in being able to write off mortgage interest and certain other costs of maintaining and doing up a property.

I do pay tax on my house, every ear and the tax is calculated on the value of my home, and I have paid this or a similar tax for the last 19 years, I don't have to own the hoem either to pay the tax - just live in it and they tax me nad you and a lot of other people - council tax is a tax on homes/houses and is chargeable on the value - so If you live in a 1 bedroom flat and rent the flat you may pay £750 per year - but if you live in a house worht £500k then you may pay £3000 per year - so it is a house tax - as if it was for services it would be the same price for eveyone...

There's no point in talking about a tax on houses as neither party will do it (thankfully) and the gains are not true gains. If our house had not risen in value I would be better off. The increase went to my children's father on the divorce. It's done me no good and people still need to be housed so it's not a real gain unless you want to move into a tent or a one bed flat.

People don't buy homes because there is no CGT on any gain. They homes as they need somewhere to live and want the security of not having a landlord.

And yes there is a house tax. I pay huge amounts of council tax and don't have correspondingly extra amounts of council services in return.