Wealth tax and the rich

[Mike4]

Don't the Green Party have a policy to introduce a Wealth Tax that is reasonably well fleshed out?

I voted for them once, before I heard about this.

Ah yes, they do. Tax the richest 1% (probably a good proportion of the posters here) to raise £75bn to pay for insulating homes.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022 ... ay-greens/

Who could possibly object to that?

Oh, hang on....

In 2019 the Green Party was the 9th most successful political party, winning just 1 seat. I fear that may overstate their popularity and relevance.

One can't help wondering if this is due to their well-fleshed-out 'Wealth Tax' policy!

[the0ni0nking]

A wealth tax is completely unfair - that is IMO the nub of the matter. Whatever you have, through prudence, squirreled away to make life more bearable later in life has already been taxed. For a government to then take it is much more like theft than tax. Even if someone hasn't enough assets to fall foul of it, the principle is still rotten. It could also be a slippery slope in that once it is established the thresholds could more easily be reduced.

The Lib Dems used to be big on this. Apparently they are rowing back a bit now to win over voters, but we have all learned what the word of that particular party is worth (I'm thinking now of the students of course). C.

What one may perceive as unfair, some-one else might see as progressive!

Personally, I object to all taxation but comply with the requirements imposed on me by the state, generally submitting my self assessment while consuming an over-taxed bottle of white wine.

[Spet0789]

The only form of wealth tax which would in any way be fair would be one that adjusts wealth for taxes already paid.

I have built wealth the hard way, as a PAYE employee. As such although I am now in the bracket where a wealth tax might apply, I have already paid millions in tax along the way.

For the government to take another bite out of the amount I have retained, having already paid them the best part of half what I have earned through my own talent and hard graft would be ridiculous. This county is already ungrateful to the small number of us (basically top decile earners under 60) who carry the state and get less and less back.

[clissold345]

Poverty goes up and down with economic cycles.

That's not true for the UK under the Conservatives. Poverty rates since 2010 have never varied by more than 1% from poverty rates in 2010. I'd like to see a permanent reduction by 2% or more.

[Lootman]

Poverty goes up and down with economic cycles.

That's not true for the UK under the Conservatives. Poverty rates since 2010 have never varied by more than 1% from poverty rates in 2010. I'd like to see a permanent reduction by 2% or more.

I would like to see a lot of things.

[the0ni0nking]

Isn't it that the definition of poverty is stupid - IIRC it's a position on a median income scale which means no matter how rich everyone becomes, there is always someone in poverty?

[Lootman]

Isn't it that the definition of poverty is stupid - IIRC it's a position on a median income scale which means no matter how rich everyone becomes, there is always someone in poverty?

Yes. A welfare single mamma with 7 kids in Birmingham is better off than 99% of folks in Bangladesh. But her parasitical ass should be bailed out by us because . . . ?

[Mike4]

Further, no matter how much you tax the rich until the pips squeak, the underclass loser types in society incapable of organising their lives are unlikely to be much affected. They will always exist.

They won't all suddenly start getting jobs, turning up reliably and saving up for deposits to buy houses.

[Lootman]

Further, no matter how much you tax the rich until the pips squeak, the underclass loser types in society incapable of organising their lives are unlikely to be much affected. They will always exist.

They won't all suddenly start getting jobs, turning up reliably and saving up for deposits to buy houses.

Churchill said something similar, along the lines that socialism is good at turning rich people into poor people. But ineffective at saving poor people from the flaws and failings that made them poor in the first place.

[Mike4]

Further, no matter how much you tax the rich until the pips squeak, the underclass loser types in society incapable of organising their lives are unlikely to be much affected. They will always exist.

They won't all suddenly start getting jobs, turning up reliably and saving up for deposits to buy houses.

Churchill said something similar, along the lines that socialism is good at turning rich people into poor people. But ineffective at saving poor people from the flaws and failings that made them poor in the first place.

Such people do sometimes seem to have a built-in self-destruct button. From way back in my building site days most of my workmates were borderline loser types but there were two who each inherited substantial sums. Both managed to hose the lot up the wall within a couple of years, and were scratching about for beer money again when with better decisions they could have been set up for life.

[Charlottesquare]

Great news for business valuers etc, valuing that 27% holding in an unquoted company in which all the family work on low salaries- great fun, and get to rinse and repeat each year-fees, fees, fees.

Still, my other half is currently taking an interest in lower end auctions (too much spare time now retired) so I can send her to hoover up lots of rings, necklaces , silver, gold etc that we can then salt away unseen. (Not that we are certainly caught on £2million, depends what included, but once they start these sorts of things they tend to want to spend more so tax on lower and lower amounts)

[scrumpyjack]

Further, no matter how much you tax the rich until the pips squeak, the underclass loser types in society incapable of organising their lives are unlikely to be much affected. They will always exist.

They won't all suddenly start getting jobs, turning up reliably and saving up for deposits to buy houses.

Churchill said something similar, along the lines that socialism is good at turning rich people into poor people. But ineffective at saving poor people from the flaws and failings that made them poor in the first place.

Yes and there is much truth in the saying - If you're not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you have no head!

[Gerry557]

It would l suspect lead to a large exodus of capital and successful people from the UK and send a message that wealth creators and risk takers are not welcome here. Even the socialist UK governments of the mid-1900s never imposed such a tax and Starmer/Reeves have ruled it out for their government in waiting.

I am surprised that anyone is talking about it.

It was Reeves that was talking about it on Sunday morning on TV.

[Gerry557]

That TLF has lots of cheerleaders for a wealth tax is laughable. That's the sort of nonsense you'd expect to see on The Guardian, not a site that is supposed to be about making money.

I haven't seen any cheerleaders here supporting it. In fact most comments point out flaws with it.

There have been links to articles supposedly in favor or why we should/could do which answers some of my original question.

[Lootman]

It would l suspect lead to a large exodus of capital and successful people from the UK and send a message that wealth creators and risk takers are not welcome here. Even the socialist UK governments of the mid-1900s never imposed such a tax and Starmer/Reeves have ruled it out for their government in waiting.

I am surprised that anyone is talking about it.

It was Reeves that was talking about it on Sunday morning on TV.

If she was asked about it then presumably she would talk about it. But did she say she supported the idea? That would contradict everything she had said in the past about it being a non-starter.

[the0ni0nking]

In 2021, Rachel Reeves was in favour of a wealth tax.

In 2023, Rachel Reeves was not in favour of a wealth tax.

As the next parliament will likely exist for around 5 years, it's likely she may have at least 2 more differing opinions on the matter.

[Gerry557]

A wealth tax is completely unfair - that is IMO the nub of the matter. Whatever you have, through prudence, squirreled away to make life more bearable later in life has already been taxed. For a government to then take it is much more like theft than tax. Even if someone hasn't enough assets to fall foul of it, the principle is still rotten. It could also be a slippery slope in that once it is established the thresholds could more easily be reduced.

The Lib Dems used to be big on this. Apparently they are rowing back a bit now to win over voters, but we have all learned what the word of that particular party is worth (I'm thinking now of the students of course). C.

"Their fair share" is another term often banded about. I thought Inheritance tax was the one tax most people thought unfair even though many don't pay it. I can also see your point of view.

As for double taxation, unfortunately it's a merry go round. Earn it and it's taxed, spend it and it's taxed, Vat! Save it and it's taxed. Dividends get taxed on top of the tax the companies pay.

Thresholds reduced no chance! Otherwise middle incomeers would be paying the higher rates of tax instead of the "well off" Takes tongue back out of cheek.

[XFool]

Guardian Opinion column from Sept 2021:

"With our proposal, wealthier households would face increasing marginal rates, with only the top 1% (ie, those with accumulated wealth of more than £3.4m) paying anything at all. Household wealth between £3.4m and £5.7m would be taxed at 1%; between £5.7m and £18.2m at 5%; and above £18.2m at 10%. For example, this means that a household that owns £4m would only pay £6,000 a year – 1% of the £600,000 they own above the £3.4m cut off. Anyone below the £3.4m mark, would not pay an extra penny."

Needless to say this would exclude the capital value of all those index linked DB pension schemes and the luvvies houses in Kensington and Primrose Hill!

Would it? How do you know this? (I don't)

BTW, is your post an example of "The Politics of Envy"?

[Gerry557]

In 2021, Rachel Reeves was in favour of a wealth tax.

In 2023, Rachel Reeves was not in favour of a wealth tax.

As the next parliament will likely exist for around 5 years, it's likely she may have at least 2 more differing opinions on the matter.

We also might have another 8 or 9 Chancellors in that time looking back at history and Rachel might not even be one of them even if her party gets in.

[Gerry557]

Thanks Mike4 for the link about the wealth tax. It's looks like where the Guardian article came from. I need time to go through all that.