5 Comments
User's avatar
Paul Cassidy's avatar

I recall that Nigel Lawson, hardly a Murphyite, stated the same as Murphy as regards treating income and gains alike as, to the recipient, they were interchangeable.

I don’t recall now whether it was Lawson or a successor as chancellor who did tax capital gains at the marginal income tax rate, although a further successor reversed this.

Big difference - Lawson introduced indexation.

Expand full comment
Tim Worstall's avatar

Lawson indeed. Osborne reversed it - lower rate without indexation.

Expand full comment
Paul Cassidy's avatar

I don’t know why Murphy doesn’t go the whole hog and say that everyone’s entire income should be paid to the State and we would all then be allocated pocket money (sorry, UBI) to meet our limited needs. Nobody would have any capital in which to make gains or investment income since nobody would have any surplus income to save. All historic capital accumulation would of course be transferred to the State.

This is clearly what he wants. He should be honest about it rather than trying to get there by stealth.

Expand full comment
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown's avatar

The tax on capital GAINS should be the same as income because both should be zero.

Of course (as it's me and perhaps more importantly Adam Smith and David Ricardo) a tax on the title value would be a far better option.

Expand full comment
Jacqueline W's avatar

In Ireland if you have your money in a fund (ie not a simple savings account but invested in shares or property trust or whatever) they tax your "gain" at your marginal income rate every 8 years.

Expand full comment