Category: Taxes and Theft

Great Idea, Never Happen

Advice, Economics, Taxes and Theft

Turning Britishland into Singapore?  It’s an intriguing concept, as explained here.  An excerpt:

There is nothing new in the comparison between modern Britain and circumstances in Singapore when it gained independence in 1965. Like the UK following the Brexit referendum, Singapore was involved in a rancorous divorce from a much larger geopolitical entity that left it facing an uncertain path. For one island’s withdrawal from the European Union in 2016, read another’s split from the Federation of Malaysia 55 years ago.
As many a minister has pointed out in recent years, Singapore went on to conjure an economic miracle. In the space of a generation, it has transformed itself from a country where the average citizen was two and a half times poorer than the average Briton, to a hotbed of soaring prosperity where total economic output is now 70 per cent higher than in the UK.

Here’s what the Brits would have to do, though:

In a country where the average monthly salary is about S$70,000 (£40,000), [Singapore] residents pay income tax of just 7 per cent – less than half of the 20 per cent charged in the UK – while a salary equivalent to £46,000 would attract 11.5 per cent tax.
The individual tax ceiling is 24 per cent, payable only by those earning more than 1 million Singapore dollars; the equivalent rate in the UK is 45 per cent, a bracket that comes into play for anyone with a salary of more than £125,140 (about 217,000 Singapore dollars).
The country’s more favorable tax regime extends to corporation tax, which stands at 17 per cent in Singapore compared with 25 per cent in the UK. There is no capital gains or inheritance tax.

Cut and eliminate taxes?  In Britain?

Hence the title of this post.

Yet Another Tax

Gummint, Taxes and Theft

So Britishland is going to implement a wealth tax — whereby one is taxed (annually) not just upon income, but upon one’s total “wealth”, including such things as property.

How do I know this?  From this statement by their Labour Government:

A minister has opened the door to Labour introducing a wealth tax at some point amid pressure from backbenchers to change course ahead of sweeping welfare cuts.

Emma Reynolds said that the Government would reject demands for a 2 per cent levy “for the time being” but did not rule out such a tax at future financial events.

If you’re at all familiar with politician-speak, “did not rule out”  means “we’re gonna do it, and sooner than you think”.

And lest you think this villainy is confined to places across The Pond, be aware that it’s a staple position among the Wealth Envious (i.e. most Democrats) Over Here as well.

Step forward, Sen. Pocahantas Warren:

The wealth tax is a cousin of the property tax, but it encompasses all forms of wealth: cash, stocks, jewelry, thoroughbred horses, jets, everything. Warren calls the policy her “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” It would impose a 2% federal tax on every dollar of a person’s net worth over $50 million and an additional 1% tax on every dollar in net worth over $1 billion. Economists estimate it would hit the 75,000 richest households and raise $2.75 trillion over ten years.

The minute you hear the “t” word (“trillion”) applied to tax revenue, you can see the Socialists’ ears prick up.

Now here’s the fun part.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn’t raise much revenue.

Lest you think that this precedent would prevent socialists like Warren and the Labourites from initiating such a tax, you don’t know much about Socialism — where history (especially of failure) is always brushed aside with the airy comment of “But this time, we’ll do it better!”

After the loathsome Emma Reynolds’s little aside, that roaring you hear will be the sound of more (taxable) private jets being readied for takeoff on one-way flights out of the UK — although it should be noted that the roaring has been going on ever since Labour was returned to power last year.

Quote Of The Day

QOTD, Taxes and Theft

From our old buddy Senator Schmuckie Schumer (Soc-NY), talking about taxes:

“You know what their attitude is?  ‘I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me?’ “

Couldn’t have put it better myself, asshole.  And it’s not just “greedy business owners” who feel that way, either — something your Party Of Thieves is going to discover soon enough.

Quote Of The Day

Taxes and Theft

From Bill Hoge, in discussing POTUS’s plan to close over one hundred I.R.S. offices:

“Why do we need taxpayer assistance centers? Why are our taxes so freaking complicated that people with graduate degrees have to fork over thousands of dollars to their CPAs because the tax code is so convoluted that only a full-time tax nerd can figure them out?”

That’s a really good question.  My favorite story about the I.R.S. is the one where someone called a few of these “assistance centers” because he had a problem with something on his return.  Every single one of the centers gave a different answer to his question — in other words, the I.R.S.’s own staff couldn’t navigate their way through the code.

I remember Mr. Free Market’s tale of paying his income tax in Hong Kong, back when he lived there (pre-CCP takeover).  Every December he would go to the local tax office with the HK equivalent of an IRS Form 1099 from his employer (which stated only that his salary was $x — there were no deductions or withholdings whatsoever).  He would then write out a cheque for 5% of that amount, the clerk would stamp his 1099 as proof of payment… and that was it.

Frankly, I would have no problem with paying a flat (and fixed-forever) tax rate of 7% on that basis.  (“Why 7% and not 5%, Kim?”  Because unlike Hong Kong, we need to pay for things like naval carrier groups and interstate highways, which I like and support).  I would even support paying 7% of my Social Security, as long as everybody — including welfare recipients — paid the same tax rate on gross income, without exemption (or deductions).  Only if you have skin in the game should you be allowed to vote on the subject, e.g. raises to the rate, which I’d want protected by a Constitutional amendment anyway.

Feel free to explain to me why I’m wrong.  Good luck with that.

Comment Of The Day

Economics, Taxes and Theft

From Longtime Reader GT3Ted:

“The Lottery is a Tax on the people were not paying attention in math class.”

Absolutely, except for one small quibble.

It’s only a tax when you are compelled by government to pay it, at gunpoint.  Last time I looked, buying a lottery ticket was voluntary.

It’s also therapeutic.  In my case, it prevents me from using my AK-47 outside the shooting range every day (if you get my drift).

Cheap at the price.

Reverse Jesus

Food & Drink, Gummint, Taxes and Theft

The Hollies once released a song called “King Midas In Reverse”, in which the hapless subject of the work was afflicted with the curse that unlike the mythical Midas (who turned everything he touched into gold), everything this guy touched turned to dust.  (Compare and contrast this with, say, a Socialist politician, where everything he touches turns to shit.)

Anyway, the title of this post is not intended to be irreligious, of course, but as we all know, Christ is supposed to have turned water into wine at a marriage feast in Cana, Galilee.

It seems as though a brewer is intent on turning their own beer into water:

Beer drinkers are furious after pub favourite Grolsch decided to slash its alcohol content.

The Dutch Pilsner has dropped from 4% alcohol by volume (ABV) to 3.4% leaving fans of the beer disgruntled.

Before it was relaunched by the UK by brewer Asahi in 2020 the beer was sold at 5% ABV and has now seen a further reduction in alcohol content.

Back when I used to drink a lot of beer, Grolsch was one of my favorites, with that porcelain-topped cap a lovely touch of class.  It tasted just plain wonderful, and to be frank, if I wasn’t planning on drinking heroically (Castle Lager in South Africa, Wadworths 6X in Britishland, Henry Weinhard Dark in Murka), I really didn’t mind paying the premium price for Grolsch.

But why would the brewers of Grolsch decide to water down their beer?  Ah well, if this was not initiated by the Stupids in The Marketing Department, of course one would suspect the dirty little fingers of Gummint poking into our various orifices.

And that suspicion would be correct.

New legislation introduced last year means drinks are taxed based on their alcoholic strength.

Since the alcohol duty regime came into effect in August and brewers have been reducing alcohol content, while keeping prices the same.

While the reductions may appear small, they generate a tax saving of 2p to 3p on every bottle. [none of which has been passed on to the consumer — K.]

Among the popular brands where the alcohol content has been cut are Foster’s, Old Speckled Hen, Kronenbourg, and Hophead — the practice has been dubbed ‘drinkflation’.

Drinkdeflation, more like.

In these here United States, we used to refer to 3.2% beer as “squirrel piss”, so I suspect that 3.4% can’t be far off.

Good thing I don’t drink beer in any quantity anymore, or else I’d be getting angry.