Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the world should have a 100% tax rate

215 replies

notanothernamechange24 · 21/05/2026 22:27

On anyone with assets or income over 1 billion pounds. Nobody needs to hoard money / wealth to that degree. There is no justification for it.
The world would be a far better place without billionaires let alone trillionaires.

I know it will never happen. But it should. AIBU?

OP posts:
crackofdoom · 22/05/2026 08:13

anonamouse1234 · 22/05/2026 08:02

Or do you lose the argument for just asserting “if you quote XYZ you lose the argument” without any rationale?

And can you explain why the existence of billionaires is not consistent with the future of the planet? Wealth inequality has existed for a very long time (see Romans etc) and is a result of capitalism. Is your logical argument that only communism is consistent with a future of humanity?

When wealth inequality got too high in the late Roman Empire, the empire collapsed. Might be good to remember.

darksideofthetoon · 22/05/2026 08:11

notanothernamechange24 · 21/05/2026 22:27

On anyone with assets or income over 1 billion pounds. Nobody needs to hoard money / wealth to that degree. There is no justification for it.
The world would be a far better place without billionaires let alone trillionaires.

I know it will never happen. But it should. AIBU?

The world is run by psychopathic megalomaniacs. The best you can hope for is that they become philanthropists in their older years and put their vast wealth to worthy causes.

crackofdoom · 22/05/2026 08:11

OneTealShaker · 22/05/2026 07:25

Yeah millionaires in Iran and Indonesia maybe.

You say this while the UK news is currently reporting on a British MP having received a donation of £5000000, while his political party had previously received £12000000 from the same individual?

I'm sure he doesn't want anything in return for those donations, he must just have done it because he thinks Nigel Farage is a great guy.

PinkPonyAnonymous · 22/05/2026 08:06

Nogreenskittles · 21/05/2026 23:35

I always think this is a bit of a nonsense argument. Do you seriously think every entrepreneur is just going to give up in case they become billionaires?

Lots of people give their all to a business for reasons other than money. some noble reasons - others not.

A lot of it is mindset. A lot of these mega rich tycoons are actually quite emotionally stunted and would actively benefit from not chasing money and focusing elsewhere.

i think we should adopt the ancient Greek attitude to taxes- people actively sought to pay more tax because it brought kudos and status. We need people thinking like this rather than trying to hoard it

Get the tech bros wearing lil’ shiny badges “I paid £1,000,000 in tax”

Make it a collectables situation and they would lose their minds!

rwalker · 22/05/2026 08:06

Ask yourself if you’d work for nothing
we need to look at the rules that stop people working
like the ridiculous low amount of your only allowed to earn before careers allowance stops
and the magical 16 hours to get benefits
booths these need a taper rather than a cliff edge
people going over 100k they lose childcare so it’s not worth it they work less
all of the above force people to work less thus pay less tax

we need to look at the bottom of the pile not just the top

GreenHuia · 22/05/2026 08:06

Dunnocantthinkofone · 21/05/2026 22:30

Well, what incentive would they have to build companies that employ hundreds or thousands of people in well paid positions
Yanbu to think no one needs billions but deprivation of assets is a daft idea in a capitalist society

But are they employing people in 'well paid positions' or are large numbers of their staff working for the minimum wage? Perhaps the tax rate should be 100% above £1 billion, but that rate is reduced if they prove that ALL employees are actually well paid - the better paid the employees, the lower the tax rate. That way, more people are earning enough money not only to pay the bills each month, but also to pay back into the economy through additional spending - more people spending more money is definitely better for the economy!

Doingtheboxerbeat · 22/05/2026 08:04

This thread immediately highlights the folk who have no fcking idea what a billion actual means 😖. What do mean "no incentive to earn loads of money" - you can't ethically earn a billion quid through hard work, bffr - a million quid yes, different, but not a billion. Be serious 😩.

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 08:04

Alateone · 22/05/2026 08:03

And it doesn’t work from a “moral” perspective either

The planet belongs to all of us not just the few. How anyone can argue for the morally repugnant alternative is outrageous.

Alateone · 22/05/2026 08:03

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 00:32

Oh believe me I know it would be virtually impossible to do. I’m more looking at it from a moral perspective than anything.

And it doesn’t work from a “moral” perspective either

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 08:03

Shedmistress · 22/05/2026 08:01

You've literally just demonstrated how the Laffer Curve works! If you increase the tax rate the positivity decreases into depression and doom and gloom. which you just did.

Brilliant.

So is the planet just for the ultra rich to decide over or do other human beings get a say. Obviously, unfortunatel, in 2026 money talks the loudest it has ever been but that is completely morally repugnant.

anonamouse1234 · 22/05/2026 08:02

ForWittyTealOP · 22/05/2026 07:38

Once someone mentions the Laffer curve on here they've lost the argument. They've obviously just done a quick Google of "why paying tax is bad" or similar; they haven't even bothered to ask AI to explain it to them very simply.

The point here is that billionaires should not and in fact cannot continue to exist if there's to be a viable future for our planet. Personally I don't believe there's much of a future for the human species anyway. Non human animals will be ok when we've gone, after a while. Billionaires are just a symptom of the demise of the human era and the effect of the anthropocene. But if we want to try and carry on for a bit, we have to tax billionaires out of existence. Not for the money but to end their harmful reign.

Or do you lose the argument for just asserting “if you quote XYZ you lose the argument” without any rationale?

And can you explain why the existence of billionaires is not consistent with the future of the planet? Wealth inequality has existed for a very long time (see Romans etc) and is a result of capitalism. Is your logical argument that only communism is consistent with a future of humanity?

Applecup · 22/05/2026 08:02

Winner of the most ridiculous post today.

Bimblebombles · 22/05/2026 08:01

notanothernamechange24 · 21/05/2026 23:10

But they will continue to earn over that rate. The interest alone would be bringing in millions a year. When you have that level of wealth it just increases.

Interest is taxable income though…? In your worldview, the interest too would be taken off them

Shedmistress · 22/05/2026 08:01

ForWittyTealOP · 22/05/2026 07:38

Once someone mentions the Laffer curve on here they've lost the argument. They've obviously just done a quick Google of "why paying tax is bad" or similar; they haven't even bothered to ask AI to explain it to them very simply.

The point here is that billionaires should not and in fact cannot continue to exist if there's to be a viable future for our planet. Personally I don't believe there's much of a future for the human species anyway. Non human animals will be ok when we've gone, after a while. Billionaires are just a symptom of the demise of the human era and the effect of the anthropocene. But if we want to try and carry on for a bit, we have to tax billionaires out of existence. Not for the money but to end their harmful reign.

You've literally just demonstrated how the Laffer Curve works! If you increase the tax rate the positivity decreases into depression and doom and gloom. which you just did.

Brilliant.

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 07:59

Wickedlittledancer · 22/05/2026 07:56

I can’t work out why you think it’s morally right to take all the money off of someone over a certain level, money they created, giving jobs to many people, it’s grabby and spiteful, jealous sounding, but morally right to say you can’t have it share it out, no, not seeing it.

What are you on about, if you are a billionaire where's your moral compass. I linked the article where the Danish multi - millionaire is arguing for wjatbis morally correct.

user9764325677 · 22/05/2026 07:58

Dunnocantthinkofone · 21/05/2026 22:30

Well, what incentive would they have to build companies that employ hundreds or thousands of people in well paid positions
Yanbu to think no one needs billions but deprivation of assets is a daft idea in a capitalist society

Trickledown economics just doesn’t do this though. I suggest you put this argument to the Amazon workers having to use food banks, and see if they feel grateful to have a billionaire boss

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 07:57

CruCru · 22/05/2026 07:52

How would you physically do it though? Billionaires earn income from several countries (usually). How would you keep track of how much is earned or owned across all the countries? Which country would collect the tax?

Billionaires are mobile. If one country chooses to do this, they’ll move. I think Jersey have a thing where you can move there if you can show that you will have a noticeable impact on the island’s coffers.

You could align your tax principles, harmonise fiscal policies to close loop holes as I stated in my previous post. Admittedly this is not going to be globally feasible but I wouldn't see how it isn't from Jersey ans Europe.

Wickedlittledancer · 22/05/2026 07:56

I can’t work out why you think it’s morally right to take all the money off of someone over a certain level, money they created, giving jobs to many people, it’s grabby and spiteful, jealous sounding, but morally right to say you can’t have it share it out, no, not seeing it.

CruCru · 22/05/2026 07:52

How would you physically do it though? Billionaires earn income from several countries (usually). How would you keep track of how much is earned or owned across all the countries? Which country would collect the tax?

Billionaires are mobile. If one country chooses to do this, they’ll move. I think Jersey have a thing where you can move there if you can show that you will have a noticeable impact on the island’s coffers.

Yellowingtrees · 22/05/2026 07:49

Op I agree with you.

How can it be that people are making arguments saying ‘oh, but this happens already for people earning 100,000’

you’re right - 100,000 is loads! But a billion a year is 10,000 times more! It’s an impossibly vast amount of money. Having that amount of wealth is astonishing. Having that income????

ForWittyTealOP · 22/05/2026 07:38

Once someone mentions the Laffer curve on here they've lost the argument. They've obviously just done a quick Google of "why paying tax is bad" or similar; they haven't even bothered to ask AI to explain it to them very simply.

The point here is that billionaires should not and in fact cannot continue to exist if there's to be a viable future for our planet. Personally I don't believe there's much of a future for the human species anyway. Non human animals will be ok when we've gone, after a while. Billionaires are just a symptom of the demise of the human era and the effect of the anthropocene. But if we want to try and carry on for a bit, we have to tax billionaires out of existence. Not for the money but to end their harmful reign.

HelmholtzWatson · 22/05/2026 07:36

anonamouse1234 · 22/05/2026 05:25

But you are taxing all income, right? Any savings interest is taxed as income, and is therefore subject to 100% too. If I had £1bn (big if unfortunately) and I know interest above £1bn would be taxed 100%, I would spend the amount needed per year (gin, etc) so that I had the amount in saving that would compound to £1bn, avoiding your tax. As a PP says, Laffer is your answer to this question (just Google).

So conclusion, you would raise a lot less in taxes that you do now, so that we are all poorer, fewer libraries, teachers, police etc. Kick the rich and we in fact kick ourselves. To me - this is a strong moral argument against your proposal.

ie would you do this on moral grounds… absolutely not.

Yep this. I do all I can to get my effective tax rate below the 40% threshold, to the point where when my salary reaches to the appropriate level, I'd rather work 4 days a week. Therefore, the more you tax higher earners, the more they will seek ways to avoid that tax, and the government ultimately ends up with less money overall.

Q2C4 · 22/05/2026 07:36

Most wealth at this level is in shares / options not cash. How would you manage this? Take shares away once the shareholding value goes above £1bn and give it back if the shareholding value drops?

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 07:34

OneTealShaker · 22/05/2026 07:25

Yeah millionaires in Iran and Indonesia maybe.

I don't think anybody is arguing for Communism more a slight adjustment that was akin to the past when more balance existed. Perhaps Billionairea can have a little bit less so hardworking people can have a fair standard of living.