Wealth Tax - Is it time to try?

[Dahnsouff]

A potential vote loser especially with pseudo lobbying, but is it worth trying? (Despite the historic failures in Europe in attempting to do so)

Is this something we should pressure for as the voting public?

 

Do not mean count Capital Gains, Inheritance, etc, as this would be a tax on sitting assets.

 

Who’s afraid of a wealth tax? (ft.com)

 

Edited 16 August by Dahnsouff

[Dahnsouff]

Would personally like to see an attempt be made, but with care so as not to derail it before it can even begin.

[Zear0]

Absolutely, but don't think it'll happen for the reasons you've already mentioned. 

 

For those who haven't read the brilliant Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty, I'd encourage you do so.  He explains so clearly that the rate of returns on capital is significantly greater than the increase in economic growth which is only ever possible by increase in wealth inequality (sounds obvious when you think about it).  Given this book is over a decade old now, the societal consequences he outlines of this inequality are even worse in the post-COVID world.

[Greg2607]

I think people confuse a wealth tax with "higher rate tax"... in reality, we are talking about taxing the people who are super rich.  Most of us don't see those people around us.   I was in Harrods at the weekend and there were sofa's for sale at £80,000....... it's THOSE people who can probably afford to be taxed more on their wealth. 

 

I imagine it wouldn't affect anyone posting on this forum... (or very very very few)

[Daggers]

We should tax the rich until they bleed. 60% for higher incomes and clamp down in inheritance scams and offshored wealth.

 

They've robed and are robbing the UK. 

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, Greg2607 said:

I think people confuse a wealth tax with "higher rate tax"... in reality, we are talking about taxing the people who are super rich.  Most of us don't see those people around us.   I was in Harrods at the weekend and there were sofa's for sale at £80,000....... it's THOSE people who can probably afford to be taxed more on their wealth. 

 

I imagine it wouldn't affect anyone posting on this forum... (or very very very few)

Superrich - 95% rate

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

I think people confuse a wealth tax with "higher rate tax"... in reality, we are talking about taxing the people who are super rich.  Most of us don't see those people around us.   I was in Harrods at the weekend and there were sofa's for sale at £80,000....... it's THOSE people who can probably afford to be taxed more on their wealth. 

 

I imagine it wouldn't affect anyone posting on this forum... (or very very very few)

Presume you only bought three of them for your front room?  Don't want to be immodest and put one in every room.

[Dahnsouff]

42 minutes ago, Daggers said:

We should tax the rich until they bleed. 60% for higher incomes and clamp down in inheritance scams and offshored wealth.

 

They've robed and are robbing the UK. 

I realise this a popularist and flippant response, but it is also a sure fire way to scupper any such tax  

[Otis]

Interested to see how this would work?

[Tommy G]

Tricky...surely if this came in you'd sell up or move your assets elsewhere to avoid it. I think they could get away with a tax rate of 60% over £500K p.a, not many super rich have their income via PAYE though. I think we would see more worldwide use of this kind of tax if it worked, but we don't. 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

We should tax the rich until they bleed. 60% for higher incomes and clamp down in inheritance scams and offshored wealth.

 

They've robed and are robbing the UK. 

What income level would warrant a 60% tax?

[st albans fox]

Someone who is in favour needs to define what ‘rich’ is ? 

 

I’m someone who thinks these ultra wealthy people would mainly find a way around these things 

 

there are some countries that do it successfully but I think these are countries which have a fairly strong tax regime and the population buy into that.  We are a country of people that has traditionally tried to pay as little tax as we can get away with. 

Edited 16 August by st albans fox

[SystonFox]

don't go in harrods if you cant afford 80k sofas

[SystonFox]

rich - for me is someone who has a range rover, XL bully, crushed grey velvet sofas and a sleeve tattoo living on a new build estate with a hot tub in the back garden

[Greg2607]

6 minutes ago, SystonFox said:

rich - for me is someone who has a range rover, XL bully, crushed grey velvet sofas and a sleeve tattoo living on a new build estate with a hot tub in the back garden

that isn't "Rich" in the Wealth Tax sense of the word though. 

 

I suspect we might see some sort of leveling of capital gains for things like Shares etc....   Income that is generated through that rather than through salary.  Rishi Sunak "Earnt" his PM salary... but also saw his "wealth" increase by £24m in the same year.... 

 

ultimately as a country, we are living way beyond our means... so there are limited options available if we want to have a functioning infrastructure (and as an extension, society) - We either raise more tax... or have a step change in national productivity....   given that we are predominantly a service sector economy.... It's more likely to be the former. 

[SystonFox]

1 minute ago, Greg2607 said:

that isn't "Rich" in the Wealth Tax sense of the word though. 

 

I suspect we might see some sort of leveling of capital gains for things like Shares etc....   Income that is generated through that rather than through salary.  Rishi Sunak "Earnt" his PM salary... but also saw his "wealth" increase by £24m in the same year.... 

 

ultimately as a country, we are living way beyond our means... so there are limited options available if we want to have a functioning infrastructure (and as an extension, society) - We either raise more tax... or have a step change in national productivity....   given that we are predominantly a service sector economy.... It's more likely to be the former. 

in all honesty mate it was satire. thats what most people seem to aspire to achieve now, rightly or wrongly. 

[Greg2607]

Just now, SystonFox said:

in all honesty mate it was satire. thats what most people seem to aspire to achieve now, rightly or wrongly. 

I don't have the Range Rover or the Hot Tub... so I think i'm about 1/3 of the way to being rich! lol. 

[Dahnsouff]

36 minutes ago, Otis said:

Interested to see how this would work?

Historically, when tried in Spain, Norway and Switzerland, it hasn't   Was discussed I believe during the Heath government, but rejected as too costly and awkward.

 

Not the greatest endorsement I agree, but wealth disparity is now such a problem and it also being a fundamental driver behind many current problems, something must be done or at least tried.

 

The basic principle is that if you have assets (Its all about assets) where assets could be simply quantified as

 

A wealth tax is a tax levied on the net fair market value of a taxpayer’s assets. It applies to the net fair market value of all or some of a variety of asset types held by a taxpayer, including cash, bank deposits, shares, fixed assets, personal cars, real property, pension plans, money funds, owner-occupied housing, and trusts. Typically, wealth taxation often involves the exclusion of an individual's liabilities, such as mortgages and other debts, from their total assets and to calculate net worth, you'll subtract a person's liabilities from their assets.

 

If you have assets over X value, say 1m? 2m? 10m? (Super contentious)  then you pay a percentage on it, either as a one-off or recurring due.

 

Is tax flight (People leave because you are taxing them) an issue? Yes according to some, no according to others, so hard to say.

 

(Taxing at the source of generation not registration is the other option I guess, this where you own a supermarket or shares in it in the UK for example, but live in Belize, you would still pay UK tax as the expenditure to mature the asset is from the UK  - no idea if this is possible, but it seems fair  )

 

This is all big change, but guess what....it is needed imho

 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

I realise this a popularist and flippant response, but it is also a sure fire way to scupper any such tax  

The very idea that I would populate the forum with flippant responses!  

 

See also...

 

26 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

What income level would warrant a 60% tax?

What do you earn?

 

That.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Daggers said:

The very idea that I would populate the forum with flippant responses!  

 

See also...

 

What do you earn?

 

That.

I don`t earn money, I steal a living

[Daggers]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

I don`t earn money, I steal a living

I've spent the morning wandering around Kettering with a camera while the car is being done. It's my first time in a town centre for years. I feel very sorry for those who have to steal for a living - there's nothing here.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Daggers said:

I've spent the morning wandering around Kettering with a camera while the car is being done. It's my first time in a town centre for years. I feel very sorry for those who have to steal for a living - there's nothing here.

Town centres have not counted as places for the living for some time unfortunately   

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Town centres have not counted as places for the living for some time unfortunately   

Clearly so.

 

But I have had my first and second go ever on an electric scooter.

[kenny]

28 minutes ago, SystonFox said:

rich - for me is someone who has a range rover, XL bully, crushed grey velvet sofas and a sleeve tattoo living on a new build estate with a hot tub in the back garden

Does an inflatable from Aldi middle aisle count?

 

I've always thought about it as you can hide afterwards so you don't look chavvy. If that pushes me into a higher tax bracket I think that would be a deal breaker.

 

Maybe Rach will include a department at treasury to check those that have temporary ones rather than permanent.

[Tommy G]

9 minutes ago, Daggers said:

The very idea that I would populate the forum with flippant responses!  

 

See also...

 

What do you earn?

 

That.

That doesn't make any sense, come on you're better than that - we have a 45% rate over £125K, do you mean extending that overnight to 60%? We are talking here about taxing the super rich and a wealth tax not just altering bandings. A couple on a modest £60K salary each will be far better off than a single earner on £125K.

Edited 16 August by Tommy G