Wealth Tax - Is it time to try?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

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.

Although it being an unexpectedly flippant (*snigger*) response from @Daggers it is a genuine response I see from some, specifically that the rate should be "more than what I have", which is of course an undermining argument.

[Dahnsouff]

8 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Clearly so.

 

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

What is the entry fee for Kettering Scooter World? Does it have a cafe?

[Dahnsouff]

If anyone is unclear who we are talking about here, listen to this guy (Ex-trader)

 

 

I like Gary, even if he gets a bit repetitive over multiple videos ( https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics )

Edited 16 August by Dahnsouff

[Greg2607]

36 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

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.

"Modest" £60k salary would put them very close to the top 10% of PAYE earners in the uk. 

 

Its a very good wage for most people. 

 

I absolutely agree though, that ANYONE earning a salary in the UK, isn't the target of the wealth tax.  It's a very clever ploy though isn't it.  Get everyone angry about those people earning £125,000 a year, so that no-one is looking at the person with £25m in the bank, who's probably spending £125,000 on wine. 

 

The below is taken from the IFS website... based on a couple, earning £100,000 between them with two kids.... they would have more income than 60m people in the UK....... 

 

Edited 16 August by Greg2607

[Dahnsouff]

There is plenty of scare material for Wealth Taxes, thinking it applies to you, where in reality if you are worried it applies to you, it likely doesn't or you would not care.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I find it weird that people who have more money than they can possibly spend in a life time will go to great lengths not to pay tax.

 

Weird and obscene.

[Tommy G]

29 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

"Modest" £60k salary would put them very close to the top 10% of PAYE earners in the uk. 

 

Its a very good wage for most people. 

 

I absolutely agree though, that ANYONE earning a salary in the UK, isn't the target of the wealth tax.  It's a very clever ploy though isn't it.  Get everyone angry about those people earning £125,000 a year, so that no-one is looking at the person with £25m in the bank, who's probably spending £125,000 on wine. 

 

The below is taken from the IFS website... based on a couple, earning £100,000 between them with two kids.... they would have more income than 60m people in the UK....... 

 

My response was to a comment which was ''what you earn'' which isn't really fair and the easy argument is to just say tax anyone loads over 100K, well people over 100K are already being taxed loads, income between 100-125K for starters is taxed at 60 odd % due to the personal allowance removal. In reference to 60K, 60K is the new £40K from a few years ago. 

 

This is all about a wealth tax anyway, not ''what can you tax the worker'' - I'm not aware of any billionaires that post on here unless Top is lurking  

 

PAYE is off topic here

[st albans fox]

35 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

"Modest" £60k salary would put them very close to the top 10% of PAYE earners in the uk. 

 

Its a very good wage for most people. 

 

I absolutely agree though, that ANYONE earning a salary in the UK, isn't the target of the wealth tax.  It's a very clever ploy though isn't it.  Get everyone angry about those people earning £125,000 a year, so that no-one is looking at the person with £25m in the bank, who's probably spending £125,000 on wine. 

 

The below is taken from the IFS website... based on a couple, earning £100,000 between them with two kids.... they would have more income than 60m people in the UK....... 

 

People tend to grow into their incomes over time. Their expenditure grows along with it - bigger car, house etc etc.  so their disposable income may not be that much bigger than those earning a lower income with smaller car and house. 

 

I would have thought that increasing taxes markedly on those with the bigger bills could have quite a negative impact on the economic model the country is running on.  consumer spending is so key to it.  If you’re going to do this then I think it has to be a slow burner and certainly begin with the ultra wealthy who aren’t likely to notice the tax although they’ll hate paying it 

 

send the message that over the next decade the tax take will be increasing notably for those with assets over £10m and potentially lower if the country needs it. I think you need to set a target for 8 years into the future and travel there fairly  slowly 

 

 

[Zear0]

More of a fiscal rant than a discussion on wealth tax.

 

I've always been in favour of US style property tax to supersede council tax.  Given Zoopla, Rightmove, every mortgage company and Land Registry have estimates for property values, we really need to stop the "it's too hard" crap for taxing properties based on their actual worth.  I remember someone comparing the Council tax rates between Burnley and Knightsbridge and I'm not sure you could make a more regressive system if you tried.  You pay absolutely F.A capital gains for property value increases and, despite some lies in the right wing rags, you still won't under this current government.  There needs to be a way to balance this inequality out.

 

Shares also a weird one.  I've always wanted share purchases to be genuine investments to the businesses and the investors.  For example, if you're buying into an IPO I do actually believe there should be significantly increased tax benefits to the investors as it encourages innovation and is genuine investments in start-ups.  I was reading this morning about Revolut wanting to list on NASDAQ rather than in the UK and we need to encourage companies to invest here.  Conversely, if you're buying shares in existing companies, and all you're doing is trading via market makers, you're just buying shares off other investors which is doing nothing for the actual companies involved.  These transactions need dragging into the income tax brackets and excluded from tax relief as all you're doing is profiteering at the expense of other investors.  If they lose, they can then claim that back in relief anyway.

 

P.S VAT can f**k off too, goes without saying who suffers the most from that one.

 

[Otis]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

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

 

Thanks for explaining. I imagine calculating the value of fixed assets could be contentious. 

[Dahnsouff]

23 minutes ago, Otis said:

Thanks for explaining. I imagine calculating the value of fixed assets could be contentious. 

It is crazy contentious I agree, but I am not convinced it is insurmountable nor that it should prevent us from trying. There are plenty of presented reasons to reject such a tax, from tax flight to over inclusion of current tax payers, but it remains one of the few choices left to perform a wide reaching wealth redistribution across the population, a wealth redistribution that is well overdue.

 

Bit of stuff from the FT if interested :- Who’s afraid of a wealth tax? (ft.com)

 

There are many petitions out there for demanding the change

• Tax the Super Rich! | WeMove Europe
• Sign the petition to tax the rich | Fight Inequality Alliance
• Home - Tax Justice UK
• and there are loads more

 

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

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.

It's not meant to make sense.

 

It's an emotional and tongue in cheek response to an issue that's been let to slide by consecutive governments (that I haven't thought through properly and, as with everything on the internet, doesn't make any difference what I think no matter how well costed).

 

Like, when I say we should boil billionaires in pots of oil and take their money to fund essential services, I'm not being literal...I just happen to feel it would be a brilliant thing to do. That, or having a Saturday night TV show where we can see how far people can launch them using a trebuchet. Or getting them to outrun lions and tigers. Wealth redistribution should be fun.

[Trav Le Bleu]

53 minutes ago, Daggers said:

It's not meant to make sense.

 

It's an emotional and tongue in cheek response to an issue that's been let to slide by consecutive governments (that I haven't thought through properly and, as with everything on the internet, doesn't make any difference what I think no matter how well costed).

 

Like, when I say we should boil billionaires in pots of oil and take their money to fund essential services, I'm not being literal...I just happen to feel it would be a brilliant thing to do. That, or having a Saturday night TV show where we can see how far people can launch them using a trebuchet. Or getting them to outrun lions and tigers. Wealth redistribution should be fun.

 Most billionaires are pretty fat, so I'm guessing not far. Might get Musk into space though.

[Spiritwalker]

11 hours ago, 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.

Kettering town centre is fckin grim.

[Jon the Hat]

18 hours ago, Tommy G said:

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.

A couple is already much better off in those circumstances, and the removal of tax free allowance means these is already a 60% tax rate between about 100-120k.

[Jon the Hat]

18 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

"Modest" £60k salary would put them very close to the top 10% of PAYE earners in the uk. 

 

Its a very good wage for most people. 

 

I absolutely agree though, that ANYONE earning a salary in the UK, isn't the target of the wealth tax.  It's a very clever ploy though isn't it.  Get everyone angry about those people earning £125,000 a year, so that no-one is looking at the person with £25m in the bank, who's probably spending £125,000 on wine. 

 

The below is taken from the IFS website... based on a couple, earning £100,000 between them with two kids.... they would have more income than 60m people in the UK....... 

 

This doesn't take into account the fact that to earn that you might well need to be within commuting distance of central london.  You certainly don't feel wealthy in the Southeast on that kind of money.

[Greg2607]

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This doesn't take into account the fact that to earn that you might well need to be within commuting distance of central london.  You certainly don't feel wealthy in the Southeast on that kind of money.

Oh I totally agree, it's roughly what I earn and I don't feel "rich".  It's just a good example of why when we talk about "rich" people, it's not about the go on £150k.  It's the people we don't see, who are earning millions.  EVERYONE on any kind of "salary", whether that's PAYE or a contract, are all in the same boat.  A guy earning £25k a year, has far more in common with the £150k earner, than the £150k earner has in common with the person with £10m in the bank.  But the papers will still call the £150k guy a "fat cat" and make out that they are rich. 

 

As an aside, I also genuinely don't know how people on £30k a year cope.  Raising a family on that kind of income must be super tough. 

[Jon the Hat]

15 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 Most billionaires are pretty fat, so I'm guessing not far. Might get Musk into space though.

Are they?  I'm sure some are, but I can only think of quite lean ones right now. Musk, Gates, Ratcliffe.  

[Jon the Hat]

I suspect if you are looking at a genuine way of taxing the super wealthy you have a problem in that there are ways of them choosing where they pay tax through corporate structures, and those structures are enabled by lots of countries which want their tax income and compete for it.  There are approaches which are tightening this up, but still quite a lot of variation between tax rates by country.  This is not about putting through an income tax increase.

[Dahnsouff]

Yes, think you are right @Jon the Hat and there is little option currently, it feels like the tax collection approach needs to change, perhaps to be at the point of revenue generation, rather than at an arbitrary declared location such as residency, that way services owned would be taxed at their location of consumption. Difficult but something has to give.

Edited 17 August by Dahnsouff

[Trav Le Bleu]

51 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Are they?  I'm sure some are, but I can only think of quite lean ones right now. Musk, Gates, Ratcliffe.  

If you're in the public eye your gonna spend money on a personal trainer.

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Are they?  I'm sure some are, but I can only think of quite lean ones right now. Musk, Gates, Ratcliffe.  

Musk and lean? 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Musk and lean? 

Yeah, the guy has 50s age dad body. Look at the keg.

[Dahnsouff]

Well, signed multiple petitions, wrote to my (new Labour!) MP and complained on an Internet forum. 

 

Implemented by next weekend. 

 

Edit: Some of the reasons for wealth tax petitions being rejected on the Government's Petitions site are mind blowing.

Edited 17 August by Dahnsouff

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

The way I look at this is in terms of generational wealth. Are you wealthy enough that basically, barring breeding absolute idiots, your lineage will never have to struggle for as long as the bloodline continues? When you have that type of wealth you invariably get wealthier as investing a few billion quid will forever be growing, so tax those type of people to the absolute hilt and redistribute it to the people at/near the bottom. Obviously that’s way, way too simplistic to work but that type of tax is what I think the vast majority of people would be in favour of.