Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
Everybody should pay the tax that is due on their earnings, irrespective of job.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
Everybody should pay the tax that is due on their earnings, irrespective of job.
That depends on how you define "the tax that is due".
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
What are you defining as "earnings"?
I'm this context and specifically in reply to the post above - anything you pay income tax on. More generally what you are paid in return for work.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
What are you defining as "earnings"?
I'm this context and specifically in reply to the post above - anything you pay income tax on. More generally what you are paid in return for work.
What about interest? Dividends? Sale of investments? Shares of profits?
I'm just interested in how you think people generate income if it isn't through "earnings" of some description.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
What are you defining as "earnings"?
I'm this context and specifically in reply to the post above - anything you pay income tax on. More generally what you are paid in return for work.
What about interest? Dividends? Sale of investments? Shares of profits?
I'm just interested in how you think people generate income if it isn't through "earnings" of some description.
I don't understand your question?
I was relying to a post about people paying income tax, I used earnings in that context and explained that the campaign (tax wealth not work) is not talking about money earned in this way.
Yes money can be "earned" (poor description imo, i prefer gained) in other ways. But in this context that's not what we are talking about.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
What are you defining as "earnings"?
I'm this context and specifically in reply to the post above - anything you pay income tax on. More generally what you are paid in return for work.
What about interest? Dividends? Sale of investments? Shares of profits?
I'm just interested in how you think people generate income if it isn't through "earnings" of some description.
I don't understand your question?
I was relying to a post about people paying income tax, I used earnings in that context and explained that the campaign (tax wealth not work) is not talking about money earned in this way.
Yes money can be "earned" (poor description imo, i prefer gained) in other ways. But in this context that's not what we are talking about.
I wasn't having a pop, was just genuinely interested in what you were defining as "earnings".
You said, "They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made."
I was puzzled as to how wealth can generate more wealth without being classed as "earnings". All the things I mentioned above are "earnings" that would be taxed.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
What are you defining as "earnings"?
I'm this context and specifically in reply to the post above - anything you pay income tax on. More generally what you are paid in return for work.
What about interest? Dividends? Sale of investments? Shares of profits?
I'm just interested in how you think people generate income if it isn't through "earnings" of some description.
I don't understand your question?
I was relying to a post about people paying income tax, I used earnings in that context and explained that the campaign (tax wealth not work) is not talking about money earned in this way.
Yes money can be "earned" (poor description imo, i prefer gained) in other ways. But in this context that's not what we are talking about.
I wasn't having a pop, was just genuinely interested in what you were defining as "earnings".
You said, "They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made."
I was puzzled as to how wealth can generate more wealth without being "earnings".
Gotcha. So the original point I was making is that when we talk about inequality we should focus on wealth inequality not earnings. That is where the real inequalities lie.
Previously a high earner could gain wealth but thats not really the case anymore. We still consider £50k salary to be a high earner but for a family starting out and renting it is anything but. Our perception of a high earner is so skewed. If the average salary from 1980 increased with purchasing power (a slightly different measure than inflation but economists think more accurate when considering earnings over time) it would be over 85k now (its 35k) similarly if the tax bands hadn't been frozen so much of the time and were uprated since their inception the higher rate would be set at 162k. Which is why I was saying looking at the issue though an income tax lense is all wrong.
To answer your question, in the context of a wealth tax. The target is the people at the top of the wealth distribution who generally don't pay income tax (or only do so on a minority of their income/gain/returns/whatever word you want to use for it. There are now about 20-25% of people at the top of the wealth distribution in the UK who fall into this category. They make their money from investments an the return on these. I am an economist and am working pro bono on a wealth tax proposal for a think tank (proper one, registered charity). The proposal is 1% over £50m, 2% over £100m, 4%over £1bn. The reason I support these thresholds is because it gets around the "wealth creaters" argument (which is at best flawed anyway). Its possible to be completely self made, start businesses and do everything right and get a net worth of £10m. But to get to £50m all the research shows (its a small enough sample that you can actually study individuals) that you can't. You need either a significant and mostly multi generational inheritance, government cronyism leading to huge contracts or some level of exploitstion/dodgy business practices. These people are generally paying an effective tax rate of 4% or less (compare that to a "high earner" paying income tax). You effectively reach a level of wealth where tax becomes optional due to the schemes available to them. I'll link the full report I'm working on when released.
OK. But I think you need to get your head around the fact that "money from investments" is still earnings and therefore still, at least in theory, subject to one tax or another. Otherwise the risk is that your report is using flawed terminology and therefore (to some) may lack credibility.
I'd be interested to read it when it's finished. Good luck.
OK. But I think you need to get your head around the fact that "money from investments" is still earnings and therefore still, at least in theory, subject to one tax or another. Otherwise the risk is that your report is using flawed terminology and therefore (to some) may lack credibility.
I'd be interested to read it when it's finished. Good luck.
That was my rushed explanation. The people writing and editing the final report are far better at this stuff than me. I'm more on the technical side running the modelling and analysis. The distinction is made and terms are explained.
And personally yes I understand that income from investments can be and are referred to as earnings I maintain that we should be making a distinction between what is earned from work (either subject to income tax or from the hands on running of a small business) vs what is gained from investments. The reason being the "in theory" bit of your post above. All earnings from work are subject to income tax and that is not optional. Gains from investments are "in theory" subject to various taxes depending on the form it takes, but, in reality for those at the very top they can opt out of the vast majority of it. Hence the need for a wealth tax targeting those people.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Isn't the assumption there though that those with a lot of asset (and appreciating assets) aren't paying taxes? In my experience that's far from correct.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Isn't the assumption there though that those with a lot of asset (and appreciating assets) aren't paying taxes? In my experience that's far from correct.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
I'm afraid it's not an assumption. There are always exceptions as demonstrated by the patriotic millionaires group, who are one of the sponsors of our paper, but as said those with a £50m+ net worth are a small enough cohort to look at a lot of people individually. There's plenty of research out there already which the paper draws on and brings lots of its own primary research too. Some of them pay what at face value sounds like a lot of money but when taken as a proportion of income from all sources is rarely above the 4% mark. As said at that level of wealth tax effectively becomes optional. We even found some who are publicly vocal about paying all their tax and not avoiding anything who still only pay an effective rate of 10%. Whilst they aren't doing anything illegal you have to ask the question whether its right that these people can pay rates that are massively lower than people with much less.
As an aside, the wealth tax proposed doesn't actually even get close to equaliseing the rates with income tax. But it closes the gap a bit and raises significant cash for public services.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Isn't the assumption there though that those with a lot of asset (and appreciating assets) aren't paying taxes? In my experience that's far from correct.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
I'm afraid it's not an assumption. There are always exceptions as demonstrated by the patriotic millionaires group, who are one of the sponsors of our paper, but as said those with a £50m+ net worth are a small enough cohort to look at a lot of people individually. There's plenty of research out there already which the paper draws on and brings lots of its own primary research too. Some of them pay what at face value sounds like a lot of money but when taken as a proportion of income from all sources is rarely above the 4% mark. As said at that level of wealth tax effectively becomes optional.
If I look at those I know with wealth above £50m the above is incorrect. Most have achieved that wealth through work, have paid huge sums of income tax, CGT etc along the way so whilst they may have huge sums now in asset most has been bought through taxed earnings and earnings made on those assets will be taxable.
if there’s loopholes the wealthy are using (one assumes legally) change the tax laws.
Its a bit like the people (Gary’s economics for example) who throw out lazy one liners such as the Duke of Westminster pays no tax where as I was paying 50%, in total tosh.
PS would be love to know how someone only pays 4% on earnings…….
I lose about £50 a week in card fees unfortunately. About £200 a month which would be nice in my pocket but there is nothing I can do about it. I just have to suck it up. It's a shame the card machines have to be so greedy and charge a high percentage on my earnings.
But conversely you would always have paid charges for paying in cash either directly or indirectly.
You may save on insurance by not having as much cash on the premises and save time by your receipts being automatically credited to your account. You / your staff have less risk of robbery etc.
We all want to pay the minimum fees naturally but there are mitigations / compensatory points to handling less cash is my observation.
Unless im being dumb and missing any hidden charges, its never cost me a penny as I'm passing by a bank paying in the cash I get. I also don't have staff. Like I say there is nothing I can do as I can completely see its much easier to just tap a card as a customer. I do it myself at times but also always have a wallet with cash in. I just pick and choose who I pay cash or card with.
It's just annoying someone always wants a cut of your earnings and the card machine i use takes around £10-£15 a day from me.
Most business bank accounts have a fee was my point.
Depending on the tariff cash may be a separate element.
If you have managed to avoid that due to volumes you pay cash in so be it.
As a minimum though cards must save you some modest time in going to the bank and Counting the cash etc.
So they have that fee whether you use cash or card, and for some people cash is better. That being the case, leave it up to the individual. As I have said before on this thread, I am not advocating that people can't use their card, carry on if you want, but let those that prefer cash (or both options, as is my preference) carry on too.
As for the time taken banking, if it takes ten minutes and it saves £20, that's a rate of £120 an hour...
What doesn't save me time is standing behind a bloke in a pub whose watch doesn't work, so then he gets his phone out and is then told "No tap it on the top, not on the front" and then has to put his PIN in because it is his nth transaction, all to pay £4.90 for a pint...
Where are you drinking at that price? (And can I come?!)
I put that as an average mate. I was going to say £2.90 as places like Spoons charge...
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Which goes to show how ridiculously the income of the top 1% has increased, and why they should be paying more tax.
You seem to be a bright sort of chap, so I sure you are aware, but for others I will explain the difference between the rich and the super rich. I read this the other day, and as I am no mathematician I haven't checked it, but it seems to ring true.
If you gave me million pounds, said spend £1000 a day and told me to come back when I had spent it, I would be back in about two years and eight months, if you gave me a billion, you wouldn't see me for over 3000 years...
I don't even know if that includes compound interest.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Isn't the assumption there though that those with a lot of asset (and appreciating assets) aren't paying taxes? In my experience that's far from correct.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
I'm afraid it's not an assumption. There are always exceptions as demonstrated by the patriotic millionaires group, who are one of the sponsors of our paper, but as said those with a £50m+ net worth are a small enough cohort to look at a lot of people individually. There's plenty of research out there already which the paper draws on and brings lots of its own primary research too. Some of them pay what at face value sounds like a lot of money but when taken as a proportion of income from all sources is rarely above the 4% mark. As said at that level of wealth tax effectively becomes optional.
If I look at those I know with wealth above £50m the above is incorrect. Most have achieved that wealth through work, have paid huge sums of income tax, CGT etc along the way so whilst they may have huge sums now in asset most has been bought through taxed earnings and earnings made on those assets will be taxable.
if there’s loopholes the wealthy are using (one assumes legally) change the tax laws.
Its a bit like the people (Gary’s economics for example) who throw out lazy one liners such as the Duke of Westminster pays no tax where as I was paying 50%, in total tosh.
PS would be love to know how someone only pays 4% on earnings…….
You always know lots of people who happen to be the exception to what the data, evidence and research shows!
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Yes as said maybe the amounts sound large but at that level of wealth if you take it as a proportion of total income from all sources it suddenly shows it to be tiny compare to income tax rates. Even if someone pays everything they are supposed to.
I'm principle changing the law to close loopholes sounds sensible but its been tried and failed. The system is so complex those paid to find ways to avoid are mire in number and paid so much more than those paid to close it. The proposal effectively says, take a step back look at society as a whole, look at those at the very top with the most ability to pay but yet are in a majority of cases cases paying proportionally less than someone on 50k salary. Let's find a way to target these people for a bit more (that tbh they won't notice) even though it still doesn't equalise that rate.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
A couple of things I have heard about that seem to be only really practical for the very rich, trust funds and payment of bonuses in shares. Not quite sure how either work, but they seem to be ways of avoiding tax that mere mortals don't have access to?
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
A couple of things I have heard about that seem to be only really practical for the very rich, trust funds and payment of bonuses in shares. Not quite sure how either work, but they seem to be ways of avoiding tax that mere mortals don't have access to?
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
Trusts pay tax and if you receive shares as a bonus (I often do) I can assure you they are taxable!
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
A couple of things I have heard about that seem to be only really practical for the very rich, trust funds and payment of bonuses in shares. Not quite sure how either work, but they seem to be ways of avoiding tax that mere mortals don't have access to?
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
Trusts pay tax and if you receive shares as a bonus (I often do) I can assure you they are taxable!
far too many myths around tax.
The rates don't work out as anything close to comparable though.
If they were comparable they wouldn't exist as there would be no reason to use them.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
Everybody should pay the tax that is due on their earnings, irrespective of job.
That depends on how you define "the tax that is due".
You know know that on a thread that is discussing cash, I was referring to those who don't declare their earnings when taking cash as payment for service given. The original post I was responding to, mentioned the case of a window cleaner making a bit on the side by not declaring all their earnings. Why should a window cleaner get away with it when a shop assistant can't.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
A couple of things I have heard about that seem to be only really practical for the very rich, trust funds and payment of bonuses in shares. Not quite sure how either work, but they seem to be ways of avoiding tax that mere mortals don't have access to?
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
Trusts pay tax and if you receive shares as a bonus (I often do) I can assure you they are taxable!
far too many myths around tax.
The rates don't work out as anything close to comparable though.
If they were comparable they wouldn't exist as there would be no reason to use them.
It very much depends on the type of trust, discretionary for instance pay 45%, as are bare trusts (assuming they are in that band). Interest in possession trusts unless they are very small are also the same.
so which trusts aren’t comparable? Also can you give me an example of these wealthy people who are taking income from various sources and rarely paying even 4%?
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Isn't the assumption there though that those with a lot of asset (and appreciating assets) aren't paying taxes? In my experience that's far from correct.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
I'm afraid it's not an assumption. There are always exceptions as demonstrated by the patriotic millionaires group, who are one of the sponsors of our paper, but as said those with a £50m+ net worth are a small enough cohort to look at a lot of people individually. There's plenty of research out there already which the paper draws on and brings lots of its own primary research too. Some of them pay what at face value sounds like a lot of money but when taken as a proportion of income from all sources is rarely above the 4% mark. As said at that level of wealth tax effectively becomes optional.
If I look at those I know with wealth above £50m the above is incorrect. Most have achieved that wealth through work, have paid huge sums of income tax, CGT etc along the way so whilst they may have huge sums now in asset most has been bought through taxed earnings and earnings made on those assets will be taxable.
if there’s loopholes the wealthy are using (one assumes legally) change the tax laws.
Its a bit like the people (Gary’s economics for example) who throw out lazy one liners such as the Duke of Westminster pays no tax where as I was paying 50%, in total tosh.
PS would be love to know how someone only pays 4% on earnings…….
You always know lots of people who happen to be the exception to what the data, evidence and research shows!
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Yes as said maybe the amounts sound large but at that level of wealth if you take it as a proportion of total income from all sources it suddenly shows it to be tiny compare to income tax rates. Even if someone pays everything they are supposed to.
I'm principle changing the law to close loopholes sounds sensible but it’s been tried and failed. The system is so complex those paid to find ways to avoid are mire in number and paid so much more than those paid to close it. The proposal effectively says, take a step back look at society as a whole, look at those at the very top with the most ability to pay but yet are in a majority of cases cases paying proportionally less than someone on 50k salary. Let's find a way to target these people for a bit more (that tbh they won't notice) even though it still doesn't equalise that rate.
Sadly I work in an industry where there are many very rich people (people earning £2m+ per annum some with 100m+ in asset).
those I know pay huge sums of tax, whether you look at that from a total £ or % base. All would be paying higher % of tax on their income than someone on £50k
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
A couple of things I have heard about that seem to be only really practical for the very rich, trust funds and payment of bonuses in shares. Not quite sure how either work, but they seem to be ways of avoiding tax that mere mortals don't have access to?
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
Trusts pay tax and if you receive shares as a bonus (I often do) I can assure you they are taxable!
far too many myths around tax.
The rates don't work out as anything close to comparable though.
If they were comparable they wouldn't exist as there would be no reason to use them.
It very much depends on the type of trust, discretionary for instance pay 45%, as are bare trusts (assuming they are in that band). Interest in possession trusts unless they are very small are also the same.
so which trusts aren’t comparable? Also can you give me an example of these wealthy people who are taking income from various sources and rarely paying even 4%?
Right so there's absolutely no tax benefit at all to anyone putting anything in a trust? Hence why they are so rarely used. These people are all wonderful benevolent people using tax avoidanc vehicle's as a way to actually pay tax. This is some mental gymnastics and frankly cuckolding for the ultra rich.
Trusts generally pay a tax every 7 years, it's a low rate (I'm not at my laptop today so can't check it) if something is held there for even 50 years it wouldn't cover the IHT alone thatbwould be due on it whenbsomeone dies if it wasn't in a trust. Let alone the other taxes (CGT etc.) You have to pay on it of held separately.
The point is that at that level of wealth being able to afford access to various schemes including offshoreing and afford to pay people to minimise your liability though interacting use of the various schemes then you can effectively reduce your tax liability to a very small % of all gains in that year.
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
Your last sentence is bang on the money
I don't want to turn this in to a political debate for obvious reasons. But the last sentence really is bang on the money. In the tax year 1978/79 the bottom 50% of taxpayers contributed around 20% of income tax and the top 10% about 10%. Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
Looking at earnings is where you are going wrong here. Wealth taxes and the argument to tax the rich are not talking about earnings. The top 20-25% wealthiest in the UK do not make their money through earnings. They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made.
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
Isn't the assumption there though that those with a lot of asset (and appreciating assets) aren't paying taxes? In my experience that's far from correct.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
I'm afraid it's not an assumption. There are always exceptions as demonstrated by the patriotic millionaires group, who are one of the sponsors of our paper, but as said those with a £50m+ net worth are a small enough cohort to look at a lot of people individually. There's plenty of research out there already which the paper draws on and brings lots of its own primary research too. Some of them pay what at face value sounds like a lot of money but when taken as a proportion of income from all sources is rarely above the 4% mark. As said at that level of wealth tax effectively becomes optional.
If I look at those I know with wealth above £50m the above is incorrect. Most have achieved that wealth through work, have paid huge sums of income tax, CGT etc along the way so whilst they may have huge sums now in asset most has been bought through taxed earnings and earnings made on those assets will be taxable.
if there’s loopholes the wealthy are using (one assumes legally) change the tax laws.
Its a bit like the people (Gary’s economics for example) who throw out lazy one liners such as the Duke of Westminster pays no tax where as I was paying 50%, in total tosh.
PS would be love to know how someone only pays 4% on earnings…….
You always know lots of people who happen to be the exception to what the data, evidence and research shows!
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Yes as said maybe the amounts sound large but at that level of wealth if you take it as a proportion of total income from all sources it suddenly shows it to be tiny compare to income tax rates. Even if someone pays everything they are supposed to.
I'm principle changing the law to close loopholes sounds sensible but it’s been tried and failed. The system is so complex those paid to find ways to avoid are mire in number and paid so much more than those paid to close it. The proposal effectively says, take a step back look at society as a whole, look at those at the very top with the most ability to pay but yet are in a majority of cases cases paying proportionally less than someone on 50k salary. Let's find a way to target these people for a bit more (that tbh they won't notice) even though it still doesn't equalise that rate.
Sadly I work in an industry where there are many very rich people (people earning £2m+ per annum some with 100m+ in asset).
those I know pay huge sums of tax, whether you look at that from a total £ or % base. All would be paying higher % of tax on their income than someone on £50k
If you're only making them 2m on 100m I'd say you need to be doing a better job.
Or perhaps you're massaging the figures downwards by only looking at cash flow/withdrawals and excluding growth in asset holdings which is literally the entire point of the wealth tax conversation.
The semantic argument about what is income/earnings/wages/payment for laboue etc... is meaningless. Income is 'incomings' for which there is a tax liability.
Now let's look at actual figures as percentages are misleading in my opinion.
Income £50,000 = tax of £7,500
Income £100,000 = tax of £27,500
Income £1,000,000 = tax of £435,000
This assumes no clever tax avoidance schemes, and anyone on PAYE hasn't got a chance of avoiding tax. So tax as it is due.
So someone earning £1,000,000 (20x that of someone who earns £50k) pays 58x the tax. That seems pretty progressive to me (and you will all know my politics are left of centre).
Let's get on to wealth tax. Let's say I earn £10m pa - I pay tax of approximately £4.5m. I invest a high proportion of that net income in assets (property, art, classic cars, whatever) and when any of those assets are realised I pay CGT if applicable. Why should I then pay an additional wealth tax on my net worth, accumulated from net income?
Interesting to hear from people who work in the financial services sector and their take. Since the pandemic I have to admit leaving cash in a drawer and relying on cards to pay for anything and everything. In fact the only time I have had to carry cash at all was on a visit to Japan (one of the most advanced technological countries but still a society which prefers the colour of your money when making transactions).
High Street banks are pushing for their customers to take responsibility for their own banking through the use of apps. All well and good for those who prefer the tech...but perhaps not for older customers who often have the more substantial accounts. I still insist on monthly paper statements so I have a record in writing of my transactions.
The 'cash or card' title of this thread is already moving towards being obsolete given that increasing numbers of people are relying on their phones to pay for everything. Great if this is how you like to spend. So easy and accessible. Not so great if you lose your phone or it's nicked.
You have to take your hats off to them, they are doing less and less and earning more and more. And people just meekly accept it for the "convenience" of waving a phone at a terminal.
Have to call this one out.
for the man (or woman) on the street, with a current account waving their phone at a terminal - what exactly is the cost? Nothing additional over cash and still 99% of people pay nothing for their day to day banking.
I thought the merchant paid the bank for the "service"?
As does the merchant to take (bank) cash. Ask most smaller businesses/shops and cash is far less convenient, cost of the banking and the hassle of cashing up, taking to the bank etc.
For the end user, paying by cash or paying by card/phone etc is no different - it’s free to them.
I think many people don’t understand the cost of using cash - it was so common everyone assumes it’s free, but it’s wasn’t. Aside from printing non-counterfeitable notes, transporting them in secure transport to branches must have been a significant cost. In my limited time working in a branch, we had cash delivery in the morning, and pickup in the evening to ensure there wasn’t too much on site. There’s the opportunity cost of having to hold a whole bunch of cash to cover expected operations. Multiple staff to handle clients cash transactions, plus the cost to retailers of having to handle cash. It was never free, just hidden.
My first job was with one of the big four retail banks and there were big costs to handling cash. Doing away with cash also reduces money laundering & tax evasion as it's not so easy to hide digital transactions.
The real criminals will always find a way to launder money and evade tax, in huge amounts. Making society card only just reduces the chances of the little guy getting a break from the tax man...
The little guy should pay their taxes as much as anyone else. Tax evasion is wrong whoever it is.
Morally you are quite right of course Emme, and if the little guy had access to the same tax breaks the big guys did, I would agree, but while multi-millionaires are given the opportunity to reduce their tax bill left right and centre and poor people are not, I am not going after those the bottom of the food chain.
Like I said, the real criminals will still find a way to launder money and evade tax, cashless society or not.
People on PAYE have to pay their share of tax, so should everyone else. We all.lose out when others cheat the system.
How many Billionaires do you think are on PAYE
What they get away with compared to say a window cleaner taking cash only is ridiculous.
What do they actually get away with though ? I know the statement is made but does it bear scrutiny?
Thats not to say some sort of Wealth Tax isn’t appropriate.
The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom earners.
A couple of things I have heard about that seem to be only really practical for the very rich, trust funds and payment of bonuses in shares. Not quite sure how either work, but they seem to be ways of avoiding tax that mere mortals don't have access to?
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
Trusts pay tax and if you receive shares as a bonus (I often do) I can assure you they are taxable!
far too many myths around tax.
The rates don't work out as anything close to comparable though.
If they were comparable they wouldn't exist as there would be no reason to use them.
It very much depends on the type of trust, discretionary for instance pay 45%, as are bare trusts (assuming they are in that band). Interest in possession trusts unless they are very small are also the same.
so which trusts aren’t comparable? Also can you give me an example of these wealthy people who are taking income from various sources and rarely paying even 4%?
Right so there's absolutely no tax benefit at all to anyone putting anything in a trust? Hence why they are so rarely used. These people are all wonderful benevolent people using tax avoidanc vehicle's as a way to actually pay tax. This is some mental gymnastics and frankly cuckolding for the ultra rich.
Trusts generally pay a tax every 7 years, it's a low rate (I'm not at my laptop today so can't check it) if something is held there for even 50 years it wouldn't cover the IHT alone thatbwould be due on it whenbsomeone dies if it wasn't in a trust. Let alone the other taxes (CGT etc.) You have to pay on it of held separately.
The point is that at that level of wealth being able to afford access to various schemes including offshoreing and afford to pay people to minimise your liability though interacting use of the various schemes then you can effectively reduce your tax liability to a very small % of all gains in that year.
I didn’t say there were no tax benefits to a trust.
If you are referring to IHT, then trusts (discretionary) generally do not pay that on death, instead they pay 6% every ten years and further tax when capital is paid out. Generally referred to as periodic or principal charge. Of course how that compares to standard IHT @40% will depend on how long the trust exists v’s average life expectancy etc.
any income taken from a trust is at 45% (or 39.35% if a dividend).
so back to these mega rich people paying less than 4% tax on income from various sources, any example yet?
The semantic argument about what is income/earnings/wages/payment for laboue etc... is meaningless. Income is 'incomings' for which there is a tax liability.
Now let's look at actual figures as percentages are misleading in my opinion.
Income £50,000 = tax of £7,500
Income £100,000 = tax of £27,500
Income £1,000,000 = tax of £435,000
This assumes no clever tax avoidance schemes, and anyone on PAYE hasn't got a chance of avoiding tax. So tax as it is due.
So someone earning £1,000,000 (20x that of someone who earns £50k) pays 58x the tax. That seems pretty progressive to me (and you will all know my politics are left of centre).
Let's get on to wealth tax. Let's say I earn £10m pa - I pay tax of approximately £4.5m. I invest a high proportion of that net income in assets (property, art, classic cars, whatever) and when any of those assets are realised I pay CGT if applicable. Why should I then pay an additional wealth tax on my net worth, accumulated from net income?
But surely you’re paying less than 4% on your income, Bob? 🤔
Comments
Whereas in 2023/24, the bottom 50% contributed around 10% of income tax while the top 10% lobbed in 60%. (Of which the top 1% chipped in around 30%.). So, how much more should the well-off pay, just out of interest?
The tax wealth not work campaign have made it clear it means all people paying income tax would pay less as they (the ones who make the majority ofbtheir money through earnings) are not the ones it is aimed at. Gone are the times when being a top earner and paying high income tax made you wealthy. That's simply not the case anymore. Those with serious wealth don't get it from earnings.
So to correct the original claim: The real issue remains the gap between the top and bottom wealthiest.
I'm just interested in how you think people generate income if it isn't through "earnings" of some description.
I was relying to a post about people paying income tax, I used earnings in that context and explained that the campaign (tax wealth not work) is not talking about money earned in this way.
Yes money can be "earned" (poor description imo, i prefer gained) in other ways. But in this context that's not what we are talking about.
You said, "They may make some earnings (likely for tax or legal purposes) but most of it will be their wealth generating more wealth at a rate much greater than earnings can be made."
I was puzzled as to how wealth can generate more wealth without being classed as "earnings". All the things I mentioned above are "earnings" that would be taxed.
Previously a high earner could gain wealth but thats not really the case anymore. We still consider £50k salary to be a high earner but for a family starting out and renting it is anything but. Our perception of a high earner is so skewed. If the average salary from 1980 increased with purchasing power (a slightly different measure than inflation but economists think more accurate when considering earnings over time) it would be over 85k now (its 35k) similarly if the tax bands hadn't been frozen so much of the time and were uprated since their inception the higher rate would be set at 162k. Which is why I was saying looking at the issue though an income tax lense is all wrong.
To answer your question, in the context of a wealth tax. The target is the people at the top of the wealth distribution who generally don't pay income tax (or only do so on a minority of their income/gain/returns/whatever word you want to use for it. There are now about 20-25% of people at the top of the wealth distribution in the UK who fall into this category. They make their money from investments an the return on these. I am an economist and am working pro bono on a wealth tax proposal for a think tank (proper one, registered charity). The proposal is 1% over £50m, 2% over £100m, 4%over £1bn. The reason I support these thresholds is because it gets around the "wealth creaters" argument (which is at best flawed anyway). Its possible to be completely self made, start businesses and do everything right and get a net worth of £10m. But to get to £50m all the research shows (its a small enough sample that you can actually study individuals) that you can't. You need either a significant and mostly multi generational inheritance, government cronyism leading to huge contracts or some level of exploitstion/dodgy business practices. These people are generally paying an effective tax rate of 4% or less (compare that to a "high earner" paying income tax). You effectively reach a level of wealth where tax becomes optional due to the schemes available to them.
I'll link the full report I'm working on when released.
I'd be interested to read it when it's finished. Good luck.
And personally yes I understand that income from investments can be and are referred to as earnings I maintain that we should be making a distinction between what is earned from work (either subject to income tax or from the hands on running of a small business) vs what is gained from investments. The reason being the "in theory" bit of your post above. All earnings from work are subject to income tax and that is not optional. Gains from investments are "in theory" subject to various taxes depending on the form it takes, but, in reality for those at the very top they can opt out of the vast majority of it. Hence the need for a wealth tax targeting those people.
I can think of a number of people who would fall into the type of wealth tax you are proposing, yet they at the same time are saying huge amounts of income tax (amongst others) and always have.
As an aside, the wealth tax proposed doesn't actually even get close to equaliseing the rates with income tax. But it closes the gap a bit and raises significant cash for public services.
if there’s loopholes the wealthy are using (one assumes legally) change the tax laws.
Its a bit like the people (Gary’s economics for example) who throw out lazy one liners such as the Duke of Westminster pays no tax where as I was paying 50%, in total tosh.
PS would be love to know how someone only pays 4% on earnings…….
You seem to be a bright sort of chap, so I sure you are aware, but for others I will explain the difference between the rich and the super rich. I read this the other day, and as I am no mathematician I haven't checked it, but it seems to ring true.
If you gave me million pounds, said spend £1000 a day and told me to come back when I had spent it, I would be back in about two years and eight months, if you gave me a billion, you wouldn't see me for over 3000 years...
I don't even know if that includes compound interest.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Yes as said maybe the amounts sound large but at that level of wealth if you take it as a proportion of total income from all sources it suddenly shows it to be tiny compare to income tax rates. Even if someone pays everything they are supposed to.
I'm principle changing the law to close loopholes sounds sensible but its been tried and failed. The system is so complex those paid to find ways to avoid are mire in number and paid so much more than those paid to close it. The proposal effectively says, take a step back look at society as a whole, look at those at the very top with the most ability to pay but yet are in a majority of cases cases paying proportionally less than someone on 50k salary. Let's find a way to target these people for a bit more (that tbh they won't notice) even though it still doesn't equalise that rate.
I may be wrong, and I am sure you can point out why that would be so, Nick.
far too many myths around tax.
If they were comparable they wouldn't exist as there would be no reason to use them.
Tax on assets is a whole different ball game.
so which trusts aren’t comparable? Also can you give me an example of these wealthy people who are taking income from various sources and rarely paying even 4%?
those I know pay huge sums of tax, whether you look at that from a total £ or % base. All would be paying higher % of tax on their income than someone on £50k
Trusts generally pay a tax every 7 years, it's a low rate (I'm not at my laptop today so can't check it) if something is held there for even 50 years it wouldn't cover the IHT alone thatbwould be due on it whenbsomeone dies if it wasn't in a trust. Let alone the other taxes (CGT etc.) You have to pay on it of held separately.
The point is that at that level of wealth being able to afford access to various schemes including offshoreing and afford to pay people to minimise your liability though interacting use of the various schemes then you can effectively reduce your tax liability to a very small % of all gains in that year.
Or perhaps you're massaging the figures downwards by only looking at cash flow/withdrawals and excluding growth in asset holdings which is literally the entire point of the wealth tax conversation.
If you are referring to IHT, then trusts (discretionary) generally do not pay that on death, instead they pay 6% every ten years and further tax when capital is paid out. Generally referred to as periodic or principal charge. Of course how that compares to standard IHT @40% will depend on how long the trust exists v’s average life expectancy etc.
any income taken from a trust is at 45% (or 39.35% if a dividend).
so back to these mega rich people paying less than 4% tax on income from various sources, any example yet?