Phil Newdick (May 6) seems to confuse capital gains tax with asset tax. These are quite distinct policies. Under the former, there would be no extra tax to pay when a property is revalued, unless it is sold and the value “realised”, which is the perverse jargon for turning something real into unreal money.
He seeks an explanation why percentages can be used to assess how much tax is enough. Again, that’s confusing two concepts. Tax is imposed by percentages because it’s practical, and fixed charges would be inhumane for those with no money. How much tax is enough is a different calculation depending on the purpose of tax, which could be to meet government costs, to try to balance inequality, or to mop up surplus currency that causes both inflation and overconsumption. All three apply, but the priority changes with circumstances.
He argues that, while the rich pay at a lower rate, they are still paying a lot more than others. He omits that they still retain vastly more than others, with which they play around in an excess of fiscal irresponsibility. Ironically, in spite of all the awareness of climate change, use of private jets is at an all-time high.
People should not be penalised for being successful, but they should for being greedy. Being blessed with talent does not give you extra rights over other people. Using your skills and working hard might be for artistic or altruistic reasons, so you would not seek extra pay, or for greed, in which case you would. The rich think it’s clever to confuse these motives.
An income that is 10 or 100 times the average cannot be “hard-earned”: you can’t work 400 or 4000 hours per week. Such income is commanded, not earned, and the high-paid jobs predominate in what have been cleverly described as “bullshit jobs”.
The rich call this the politics of envy, but in my book it’s the politics of scorn. Again, its targets choose to confuse two radically different words.
Gavin Maclean
