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

I literally shared a link about tax avoidance and evasion and you completely ignored it. It's almost as if you want to target the disabled

France has a wealth tax! And significantly lower Gini coefficients than UK for both wealth and income. It's almost like this is part of what makes it better...

"It isn't about reducing the rich to a lower economic status, it's about redistributing money they will never use to where it is needed."

Absolutely. Fucking. Not.

I hate this "tax the rich" jingo. Why should people be punished for being wealthy and successful?

Yes it’s as a poster said on another thread. People expecting to stay on benefits forever and whenever they are asked who is going to pay for it the answer is always “tax the rich”

You can lol at it. The reality is the number of millionaires in France increased. We lost the most millionaires 2nd only to Moscow. Our capital has dropped out of the top 5 of wealthiest cities. That money is now in other countries.

I agree with you that we should tax wealth not work. Much of that wealth is not mobile as it's tied up in immobile assets.

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...

No, it because the "rich" have come to collectively hold a massively disproportionate amount of national & international wealth.

It isn't about reducing the rich to a lower economic status, it's about redistributing money they will never use to where it is needed.

More accurately, a wealth tax would target the super rich and people of ultra high net worth, not what most ordinary people would consider rich.

I think a lot of the cries of Tax The Rich are envy-based the and come from posters who are secure in the knowledge that The Rich will never include them.
Why should high earners subsidise a contingent of people who, for whatever reason, think they should not have to work? (Usual caveat about severely disabled etc etc)
The same people who are calling for The Rich to pay more tax are usually also calling for The Rich not to get state pensions too.
You can't have have a situation where a small minority are paying for everyone else and not even able to draw a state pension.
To ge clear, I am a standard-rate taxpayer so I am not Rich, neither are any of my relatives or associates.
I just get fed up of people who think the people they clearly envy and despise should be happy to pay for most things the UK need, without even a thank you.

Absolutely this. My DB works in Private Wealth Management in the City. His clients are leaving the UK in droves, they've simply had enough.

It’s actually the lower and middle earners who don’t pay their fair share - comparatively. Alongside asset rich. Higher earners here are some of the highest taxed in the world comparatively. Hence brain drain and NHS Drs and dentists reducing hours.

Anyway, as people are speaking of taxing the rich. The UK has lost the most millionaires, 2nd only to Moscow in the past year. All that potential tax and investement gone. Who is replacing it? Whilst other countries, like France, have gained. Our loss is their gain.

What people forget in this country, is that success is mobile. Be that financial or skill. No shortage of countries willing to welcome skill or wealth with open arms. We get so bitter that we tax these people to oblivion and they leave. The British would rather everyone suffer (which will now happen) than think people may have more than them.

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

You could argue 40% is a fair share, couldn't you?
How do you define super rich?

We are talking about the super rich paying their fair share. The people whose net worth has ballooned since Covid.

They aren’t employees on PAYE paying 40% tax!

No. I am asking pps which are saying it is wrong to do so what the alternative is.
As far as I can see, no one seems to have suggested how the money can be raised.
I don't think anyone thi ks taking money from genuinely disabled is desirable but if the money has to be saved, can you suggest another way?

Sorry I must have misunderstood. So you're proposing to remove benefits from people who are genuinely disabled?

I've not mentioned benefit fraud though?

Did you read that section?

Sorry I'm not following you?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_fraud_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Disproportionality"

Can I ask what your solution is then?
Do you agree the country can't afford to sustain the levels of benefits payments we are currently paying or do you think we should just pay them anyway and it will be all absolutely fine.
You see it's all very well being concerned and kind and caring and lovely but that's not addressing the issue that we haven't got enough money to carry on the way we are.
Or are you one if the posters who are calling to Tax The Rich with no knowledge or idea of who The Rich are (apart from it's definitely not you) or how much money that would actually raise anyway?

Respectfully, I disagree.

I think the post war decades were the fairest in recent history. The super rich were taxed more of their wealth then. It was a time when people on a normal working class income were able to buy a home and comfortably provide for their families. The NHS was thriving, and the welfare state was looking after vulnerable citizens as it should, with plenty of social housing for those unable to buy their own homes.

I think it was the Thatcher years that started to wreck society. Selfishness and greed were encouraged, collective social responsibility discouraged, and it's got worse as time's gone on. We now have a housing crisis and an obscene gulf between the richest and the poorest. Unstable employment for many, and fewer opportunities to improve your lot in life. It's no wonder more and more of us can't cope.

It certainly isn't fairer, and no doubt you didn't include that measurement because you couldn't claim it is fairer.

As for 'more "caring" than at pretty much any time in the past', well, even if that were true it would surely be a reflection of the current level of need for caring?

In my view we're living in an environment which, amongst other crises, constantly gnaws at our minds with manipulative information mediated by audio/visual and sensory technology. It might serve you and interested others to downplay the impact of that on many, but that doesn't mean the impact isn't severe and disabling for lots of people.

@WoodlandLove but is that right? Surely society is more “caring” than at pretty much any time in the past and mental health issues seem to be ballooning.

Wealth inequality is causing so many problems. Society doesn't have to be this way. I sincerely believe there'd be far fewer mentally unwell people unable to work, if society was fairer and more caring.

Well, that's kinda where we ARE at now.

The super-rich have brought up all the worlds resources and are selling them back to us at twice or three times what they paid for them.