There is general confusion I think. People tend to lump together all taxes instead of understanding them. In the same way wealth is lumped together. In assets, money and goods. Increasingly we see influence as a form of asset. Or n the sense of Gary Stevenson crying wolf on the non tax of millionaires. He makes money, I am presuming, or could make money from this position through influence and following and notoriety. Which is an asset or link to future profits. So wealth as a description is unclear. Is it money? Is it asset?? Or is it potential for either if both now or in the future? And how is it calculated and what rate or rates can. E or should be applied? Or maybe it’s just too difficult to apply a tax to? Maybe this is why do many who have tried seem to fail at it. And maybe that’s why we haven’t got one?
Kristian, to get taxes you first need to see how present taxes work. You may think you know but I gave a different lenses that I see them through that may help you.
Our tax system is not complicated. It’s based on one thing. The SPENDING of money. In contradiction to popular opinion income tax and NIC are not triggered by income. Despite it being in the heading description.
Workers are liable for tax and it’s based and calculated on income. But it’s triggered by SPENDING. When the employer SPENDS on the wages of the employee it triggers a tax. And it’s paid by the employer. Not the employee.
This is a crucial view. Through my lens. That better explains how taxes are easily set. As opposed to an impossible wealth tax. Which sounds great but in practice had no SPENDING element so won’t trigger in the same way.
Once you grasp that income taxes are triggered by the SPENDING on the he employer you can see the trigger point. The same is for vat and duty. It’s triggered by SPENDING. And even direct taxes like Council tax is based snd calculated on an enforced SPEND of money having to change hands. Something a wealth tax on fixed assets can’t do, the simplicity of council bending may be the obvious as opposed to a minefield of differences on wealth and different assets.
So that’s why a wealth tax is more or less impossible to put into practice.
Besides it’s not ever going to be enough. Why? Because a wealth tax takes money from them in a non profit change. What’s a fair tax change is gained only when money is SPENT. The millionaires get something worth what they give up. In exchange. Money for asset say. So better for them is SPENDING. But, they have no incentive to SPEND. On y to he contrary they are incentivised to keep money and loan it back to us and the government. They get more without SPENDING money.
There is no tax on unspent money.
So Kristian, what is all this for? Well to see that a one tax takes money is not enough you have to see that SPENDING the same money rotates it thousands of times through our economy clicking up the potential in flow. So SPENDING money makes more tax transactions. It’s an accumulative effect that gives us the real return of growth and tax take. Not a two dimensional argument over tax itself.
You have to see the picture in four dimensions. To understand the triggers for tax. Snd see that tax is triggered every second if money flowing via SPENDING. So many more times than one single tax payment.
100 millionaires maybe taxed a million each. But it’s only 100 million pounds.
Whereas SPENDING that same 100 million pounds into the r I only results in infinitely more tax total than a one off.
If the driver got growth us as I assert SPENDING of MONEY not presently being SPENT. So we now make it be SPENT in fast time day each month. The. You will see an increase in growth. Then you will see a rise in overall revenue. Which begets more tax revenue. Sufficient for our government to afford to pay its way and do much more,
Kristin, you have to see the bigger picture in four dimensions. Money in money out money round and in what tine? Flow that is Portugal end autonomous. That easily triggers tax from SPENDING. Enforced SPENDING to ensure maximum flow and maximum tax take. From increased flow increased tax take from less taxation.
MS=R money multiplied by SPENDING equals REVENUE. The more money, the more spending the more revenue.
Things that slow diene or stop flow us no good. Unused file unspent money is no good. And insufficient flow underfunds us all, . Especially our government. Yo turn it around you have to increase flow increase the speed of flow. It’s that simple.
Excellent presentation Kristian. Insightful argument indeed.
There is general confusion I think. People tend to lump together all taxes instead of understanding them. In the same way wealth is lumped together. In assets, money and goods. Increasingly we see influence as a form of asset. Or n the sense of Gary Stevenson crying wolf on the non tax of millionaires. He makes money, I am presuming, or could make money from this position through influence and following and notoriety. Which is an asset or link to future profits. So wealth as a description is unclear. Is it money? Is it asset?? Or is it potential for either if both now or in the future? And how is it calculated and what rate or rates can. E or should be applied? Or maybe it’s just too difficult to apply a tax to? Maybe this is why do many who have tried seem to fail at it. And maybe that’s why we haven’t got one?
Kristian, to get taxes you first need to see how present taxes work. You may think you know but I gave a different lenses that I see them through that may help you.
Our tax system is not complicated. It’s based on one thing. The SPENDING of money. In contradiction to popular opinion income tax and NIC are not triggered by income. Despite it being in the heading description.
Workers are liable for tax and it’s based and calculated on income. But it’s triggered by SPENDING. When the employer SPENDS on the wages of the employee it triggers a tax. And it’s paid by the employer. Not the employee.
This is a crucial view. Through my lens. That better explains how taxes are easily set. As opposed to an impossible wealth tax. Which sounds great but in practice had no SPENDING element so won’t trigger in the same way.
Once you grasp that income taxes are triggered by the SPENDING on the he employer you can see the trigger point. The same is for vat and duty. It’s triggered by SPENDING. And even direct taxes like Council tax is based snd calculated on an enforced SPEND of money having to change hands. Something a wealth tax on fixed assets can’t do, the simplicity of council bending may be the obvious as opposed to a minefield of differences on wealth and different assets.
So that’s why a wealth tax is more or less impossible to put into practice.
Besides it’s not ever going to be enough. Why? Because a wealth tax takes money from them in a non profit change. What’s a fair tax change is gained only when money is SPENT. The millionaires get something worth what they give up. In exchange. Money for asset say. So better for them is SPENDING. But, they have no incentive to SPEND. On y to he contrary they are incentivised to keep money and loan it back to us and the government. They get more without SPENDING money.
There is no tax on unspent money.
So Kristian, what is all this for? Well to see that a one tax takes money is not enough you have to see that SPENDING the same money rotates it thousands of times through our economy clicking up the potential in flow. So SPENDING money makes more tax transactions. It’s an accumulative effect that gives us the real return of growth and tax take. Not a two dimensional argument over tax itself.
You have to see the picture in four dimensions. To understand the triggers for tax. Snd see that tax is triggered every second if money flowing via SPENDING. So many more times than one single tax payment.
100 millionaires maybe taxed a million each. But it’s only 100 million pounds.
Whereas SPENDING that same 100 million pounds into the r I only results in infinitely more tax total than a one off.
If the driver got growth us as I assert SPENDING of MONEY not presently being SPENT. So we now make it be SPENT in fast time day each month. The. You will see an increase in growth. Then you will see a rise in overall revenue. Which begets more tax revenue. Sufficient for our government to afford to pay its way and do much more,
Kristin, you have to see the bigger picture in four dimensions. Money in money out money round and in what tine? Flow that is Portugal end autonomous. That easily triggers tax from SPENDING. Enforced SPENDING to ensure maximum flow and maximum tax take. From increased flow increased tax take from less taxation.
MS=R money multiplied by SPENDING equals REVENUE. The more money, the more spending the more revenue.
Things that slow diene or stop flow us no good. Unused file unspent money is no good. And insufficient flow underfunds us all, . Especially our government. Yo turn it around you have to increase flow increase the speed of flow. It’s that simple.