Saturday, 29 September 2012

Tax as a punishment

I take the blunt and simple view that the only consideration when setting tax rates should be to keep them as low as possible to raise the revenue required in order to provide the services we expect from the government - whatever those rates are and what we want the government to provide is for another blog post however - I'm interested in what other people think about this. On Thursday night, Steve Coogan stated on Question Time that he was in favour of a mansion tax even if it raised no revenue as it was demonstrating to the public that the government was making the wealthy pay (especially if they were Tories). So if it isn't going to raise any revenue, and that will be down to the cost of implementation, collection, behavioural changes, avoidance, and evasion, then it's simply a punishment for being in possession of valuable asset. Fuckwit.


  1. I know I'm only a simple chartered accountant, but if it raises no money *how* is it making the wealthy pay?

    1. With the mansion tax, the solutions that keep being brought up are to either take a percentage of the value of a house worth over £xM or to add some extra council tax bands at the top end. Both would require a revaluation of all houses in England (they've done Wales already recently and Scotland does its own thing I think). This would be at a huge cost and lead to thousands of disputes many of which would be eventually settled through the courts. The wealthy may end up paying more but after all costs, would it really bring in any more money?