To wonder if all those gleeful about PIP cuts are going to welcome people with serious mental health conditions as colleagues and employees?

And how many estates are worth that much and how are they going to liquidate an annual percentage to pay your wealth tax? You can't sell 2% of your Kensington townhouse to raise £20k

How much do you honestly think this would raise?

Your interpretation of the evidence I think you'll find.
I'm not triggered. But anyway I am out so you can say I am.

I'm sorry if you're upset. Evidence can be so triggering.

Well, as we're talking about comprehension, this is what I wrote in my previous post. Would you like to engage with any of it?

"The data about millionaires leaving is not reliable high-quality research - it's produced by asset management groups that are explicitly biased, in that they are employed to represent the interests of the wealthy. The proportion of millionaires leaving is actually small, because there are a lot of them to start with. Analysis of why they are leaving suggests it has a lot to do with Brexit and the failure of the UK to invest in the tech sector. Then there's also the weather - quite a lot of pensioners are now millionaires and leave to retire in the sunshine. Lol at the idea of France as a low tax haven though..."

Having said all that, and to answer your question, those asset management companies you all love to cite actually seem to be claiming that China lost more millionaires than the UK. Not hugely surprising given population sizes.

And this reflects that these figures aren't particularly useful. Indeed, the fact that we score highly on this metric primarily reflects that we have lots of millionaires in the UK - about 2.8 million of them, fourth in the world. Thus, when we lose a few of them, the figures look high. But the loss last year only amounts to around 0.3% of what we have, and that was probably not due to taxation (or else France would be seeing similar).

The wealthy and their henchmen can jump up and down and get all hyperbolic about it, but there's very little evidence that a millionaire exodus is happening, much less that it's caused by too much tax.

You are being very aggressive @CentralLimit.
I for one won't engage with a poster who can't debate sensibly.

If you have a point to make then make it. Go on I dare you.

No-one said that. Pick any other country/city in the world (apart from Moscow in Russia) who haven’t lost as many millionaires as us in the past year. Pick any other country. I’ll wait. Reading comprehension is really lacking in this response to what I’ve said.

You’ve missed the bigger picture - and the point - not a shock. I’m also not your mate.

Most of the wealth tax proposals I've seen relate to estates of >£10m

The problem with this 'tax the rich" rhetoric is that people just don't understand how little wealth you need to be considered 'rich'.

For example,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce3qnyr7y94t?page=2

"The wealthiest Americans own the most stock – in fact, the Federal Reserve estimates that about 90% of the markets' trillions are owned by the top 10% wealthiest Americans"

Wow! Why don't we just tax that top 10% who own everything?

"who as of 2022 had typical holdings worth more than $600,000 (£471,230)."

£470k really isn't that much money in terms of pension. If you took 4% a year (very risky) you'd have less than £20k a year to live on.

and that's America, which is a much richer country than the UK...

There is no magic pot of rich people's money waiting to be tapped for your benefits. It's your parent's and friend's pension savings or family homes.

Well according to previous posters we should be more like France...so let's have an exit tax!

(Actually we wouldn't have to copy France for this; we could copy the US, Canada, China, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Australia, Switzerland , Netherlands...)

The richest are leaving these shores, so what now?

I believe UBI is the answer to this going forwards. It's coming, and not fast enough imo.

You can become her appointee and then she won't have to deal with it again. I would do this then reapply, and be prepared to appeal

Well I’m hardly going to tell you and get an aggressive counter argument for my trouble am I?

Oh @Julen7 you're so mysterious. What a tease.

Oh I have concerns that probably wouldn’t have even entered your head

I know of two people personally that have almost zero wrong with them and they get PIP. They cite all sorts of mental health issues and anxiety but can then do huge festivals and other events at the drop of a hat, despite this presenting the exact sort of triggers they claim for. Yet, I personally rather a small number of disingenuous CF claim the benefit then many others being cut off and suffer.

What's your top priority @Julen7 ?

Ok look, this is pretty simple. There are two types of people on disability benefits. If you are talking about people who don't really need them then you are talking about benefit fraud. As we've already discussed, tackling this would not raise much money. We may wish to tackle it anyway - there are reasons for governments to do things other than raising funds - but it won't amount to much in terms of £££

If you are talking about people who do really need them, then removing their benefits would raise a little more, but much less than the amount lost to uncollected taxes, and would be morally abhorrent. You say you aren't talking about the latter, so I'd throw the question back and ask: what are you proposing?

And to reiterate, I think we should raise revenue by tackling things like tax avoidance and evasion, and implementing a fairer and more effective progressive tax policy. This is the third time I've said it now; I won't do it a fourth time as it's pretty clear you don't want to engage.

It’s possible to be concerned about more than one thing at a time

I think you conflating my joining in a discussion about a topic to thinking it's my top priority.
It's such a lazy answer to come back with the old 'but what about these worse things' argument. An attempt to belittle me and take your self-imposed moral high ground.
I have asked him you would raise the money and you keep coming back with an irrelevant argument about benefit fraud levels and seem put out that I wo not engage in a discussion I never entered.
So what woukd you do?

Er yes, that's my point? Throwing the question back at you mate.

I am genuinely curious about people like you. Of all the things that you could be concerned about - climate change, war crimes, food insecurity - the thing that really exercises you is...the plight of the rich?? A group that is comparatively better off every year, and will continue to be so if we implement some minor tax changes, but just at a very slightly slower rate. Like, how did you get here? I honestly want to understand.

You’re missing the point. Even with a wealth tax people see it as a better option. Have you not paused to think why that is?