What do you think of this idea of a wealth tax?

[LuluJakey1]

This is from The Guardian this afternoon. It is the third article I have seen in the Press two days promoting this idea.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/arts-wealth-tax-rishi-sunak-nhs-public-services?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Personally, I think it is bonkers. She seems to be suggesting that ALL wealth in this country - houses, savings, pensions, shares/paintings etc should be subjected to a one off tax of 10% to get us out of the financial mess.

DH and I would have to find about £80,000 cash! We'd have to sell the house?

Yes- Yes it is a good idea and you are BU to criticise it.
No- It is an awful idea and you are right to criticise it.

I think more people would consider full time working with less reliance on benefits if minimum wage jobs were higher paid and good quality affordable childcare more available.,

I would rather this than yet another public sector pay freeze.

Thanks for clapping for, but not putting a monetary value on, my post graduate career.

^"would prefer a bit less of a state "*

The largest amounts of public spending go on welfare and health, with education and state pensions way below.

Ten years of Tory government have left them, and other public services, hollowed out and underfunded.

how much more do you want to cut them?

No, you’re really not Xenia, you’re one of the most extreme right wing posters on MN.

I agree. Do you really think you're in the middle and not to the right?

We should also consider offering parents an opt out of state school with a big tax rebate if they do as so many are having to educate at home now anyway they might as well have a massive tax cut in return to cover their full time childcare costs which result.

I don't have kids so can I have a rebate as well?

These sort of threads often go the same way.
We have well off posters standing in front of their big houses, with flash cars and perfect health (perfect health by the sound of it Xenia) stamping their foot saying "it's not fair".

And they're not talking about it being unfair that the care assistants looking after their mum has to choose which child to buy shoes for because she can't afford new shoes for them both.

Boris claims he will be finding another 50,000 nurses.

Conservative MPs cheering when they blocked proposals to consider a pay rise for nurses and other public servants

In 2017, student nurses' bursaries were stopped.

And still Xenia wants more cuts and less services.

@PigletJohn

Boris claims he will be finding another 50,000 nurses.

Conservative MPs cheering when they blocked proposals to consider a pay rise for nurses and other public servants

In 2017, student nurses' bursaries were stopped.

And still Xenia wants more cuts and less services.

🤬

middle, eh?

I've no problem with increasing the numbers of teachers, nurses, etc. What I don't like is simply paying existing staff more money as that doesn't actually increase the number of staff, which is what we actually need. I'd far rather double the budget to double the staff than double the budget to double the pay of the existing staff.

This is ridiculous on two fronts. I've worked really hard to get my mortgage down and my house price is where it is because of the market. I will never see that money it's not really there and if we go into recession it wouldn't be. Also you can't have a 45oercent tax bracket and a wealth tax. You have to have money coming in to pay for the welfare state and at that rate many wealthy people would leave. Certainly if I thought it was coming in I would sell up, rent and buy a property elsewhere

@xenia,

As I explained in an earlier post, the income tax take across society has increased largely to pay for increased expenses on health and social services.

The reality is that you either pay those expenses or you:

• let poor people and old people starve or turn to crime
• allow people to endure treatable sickness or die prematurely.

The result - and we see this in former Eastern Bloc countries where the state is under considerable stress - is heavily reduced life expectancy, high crime, and enormous hardship.

This is exactly what society in the average Western country was like until the twentieth century when - surprise surprise - the state was rapidly increasing in size and taking responsiblity for welfare, housing etc. It is what we will return to if the state is rolled back in the way you and your kind would wish.

I don't know what code of ethics you subscribe by, but wanting to return to that old way of doing things is, frankly, callous.

Also commenting that rich people now bear historically high levels of tax burden also misses the point. Rich people pay more tax now than they used to because .... they're richer. If they want to pay less tax, they always have the option of simply earning less.

@user1497207191

I've no problem with increasing the numbers of teachers, nurses, etc. What I don't like is simply paying existing staff more money as that doesn't actually increase the number of staff, which is what we actually need. I'd far rather double the budget to double the staff than double the budget to double the pay of the existing staff.

@user1497207191 Oh I know I'm poking at the hornets nest and I just don't care. Why? Why do you personally feel that teachers and nurses don't deserve to be paid what they're worth? By which I mean that law, teaching and nursing all require a degree with post graduate continuous professional development. They all require registration with a professional body and the stipulations that come with that. In fact in nursing we pay a yearly fee for the privilege of going to work, which teachers don't and, I confess, I don't know about lawyers. My point is we are all professions and we are not equal. Myself and my husband graduated 3 years apart and as a teacher he earns £10k more than me, a nurse. If you want exceptional teachers and nurses for yourself and your families, consider paying us what we're worth. And please never ever doubt the knowledge and skills of our support staff, without whom this country would fall apart. Although this rant comes from a nursing and teaching point of view I'd like to shout out to the... Midwives, maternity care assistants, pharmacists, dispensers, social workers and support staff, social care assistants and health care assistants, radiographers, radiology department assistants, operating department practitioners, theatre support workers, phlebotomists, lab practitioners, teaching assistants, lunchtime assistants, behavioural specialists, and cleaning staff. Oh my days thank you cleaning staff, please know that you are valued far more than your worth and this country would be a disease ridden hell hole wihout you. (Apologies to everyone I forgot, I know my list wasn't exhaustive) x

Once again, because it seems to be missed by many people, the purpose of a wealth tax as described by Piketty is not to tax the middle classes. It is to tax the very wealthy on assets they have in the jurisdiction. In general, that should be perfectly possible as you can't move land and buildings, for example, nor shares traded in a local stock exchange.

The very rich do not need this money. However the exchequer does, in order to maintain services at their current level.

But in my view, it should go further than this - it should facilitate wealth redistribution through a tax credit scheme, so that people from ordinary families are as likely to succeed as people from very rich ones. This would mean that our society would be run by the best talent, not just those who went to the right schools.

It's painful to point out that this isn't socialism in any sense. It isn't saying that the government should control the means of production, supply and exchange.

When the very rich complain about this, they are basically making the same arguments that the very rich made in Victorian times, ie, they should get to run everything because they know best because they ... err... are very rich.

If they want to pay less tax, they always have the option of simply earning less.

I guess this works both ways if people want to be able to afford more they have the opportunity of earning more ?

@user1497207191

I've no problem with increasing the numbers of teachers, nurses, etc. What I don't like is simply paying existing staff more money as that doesn't actually increase the number of staff, which is what we actually need. I'd far rather double the budget to double the staff than double the budget to double the pay of the existing staff.

I'm all for paying existing staff more money. That's the very best way to redistribute money in society.

I understand that in the UK headteachers for example earn something like 4 times the amount of the average classroom teacher, but I doubt the headteacher works 4 times as hard.

Likewise, I don't believe for a second that a business owner who works 2 days a week and plays golf the rest of the time works harder than the person who cleans the toilets day in day out.

Hard work should pay and laziness shouldn't.

Downing Street is flying another kite today.

"UK review of capital gains tax heralds future rises, experts say

Wealth managers say chancellor’s move suggests CGT will be used to help fill public finances hole"

www.ft.com/content/4ab1e675-bae4-4ff1-a0af-4b678a415ea3

I bet they're watching Mumsnet to see how the various ploys play with the public.

@whereorwhere

If they want to pay less tax, they always have the option of simply earning less.

I guess this works both ways if people want to be able to afford more they have the opportunity of earning more ?

I agree, except I would say "they should have the opportunity of earning more."

At present they don't, because a lot of normal jobs simply don't pay what they used to, when adjusted for inflation. The very rich have that money instead.

The very rich always have the option of earning less, but the poor do not have the same chance of earning more.

There is another option to large corporations losing money because of the pandemic, which is that for a period of time they are prepared to accept that they make no profit.
Philip Green for example, earns billions off the backs of badly paid garment workers across the world and the working classes he sells his clothes to. He has furloughed thousands workers and the government has paid 80% of their wages for 6 months. It would be nothing to him to have paid their wages and to not get rid of staff, accepting he will make no profits for a couple of years. He won't do it.
There are many others like him- the billionaires and multi-millionaires who have more money than we can imagine or they could ever spend and who will have taken the furlough payments and will sack staff when the burden falls on them rather than the government.
Then there are the people who have made multi-millions from this pandemic- the PPE providers and suppliers, the alcohol makers and sellers online, the supermarkets, drugs companies, food manufacturers, toilet roll manufacturers. Their profits could be subject to a supertax- except we have so little manufacturing industry left that much of it had to be purchased abroad.

Teachers in the UK are better paid than in many European countries. Most professional jobs are better paid in the UK than in many European countries - Switzerland aside.
We pay less tax in the UK than in many European countries.
I don't think teachers and hospital nurses and hospital Drs etc are badly paid. I think their working conditions are not great and the work-life balance of their jobs is poor.
However, I think GPs are very well-paid and have very good work-life balance, as do nurses working in GP surgeries and the community.

There are many people who are completely over-paid.
For example: local authorities, hospitals, universities and many big charities pay multi-millions in salaries to people with fancy titles. They also pay 'packages' to attract them and large pay-offs to get rid of them. They are all grossly and unacceptably over-paid. There is a culture of entitlement amongst these people.

Several countries said they would not subsidise companies that hide their profits in tax havens.

I believe UK did not do that.

No doubt there's some good reason.

www.facebook.com/veryBrexitproblems/photos/a.734576486684873/1725458847596627/?type=3&theater

www.forbes.com/sites/davidd...o-europes-tax-avoiders-you-wont-get-bailouts/

"Poland and Denmark have sent a clear message to businesses that make use of tax havens, excluding them from government bailouts and coronavirus relief programmes.

And France

"Companies based in tax havens cannot get bailouts, says French minister"

"Bruno Le Maire takes tough line on businesses based in fiscal paradises.

By Elisa Braun

4/23/20, 12:42 PM CET

Updated 4/23/20, 1:02 PM CET

PARIS — France will not pay emergency cash to businesses based in fiscal paradises, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said today."

"If your headquarters is located in a tax haven, it is obvious that you will not be able to benefit from public aid," he said on France Info radio.

www.politico.eu/article/companies-based-in-tax-havens-cannot-get-bailouts-says-french-minister/

I couldn't agree more

As for whether I am in the middle - not exactly in the middle as I think this Tory Government is there which is why it got in but nor do I support abolishing the NHS, no state schooling or anything radical like that. I just want a bit of a smaller state and lower taxes all round.

The problem with saying we will just tax the very very rich is there are not many of them and they are mobile and they generate a lot of VAT and NI etc for the country so these taxes are always brought in as a kind of con on home and savings owners - the state pretends they are coming in to attack the rich and then they apply them to lower and lower and lower sums and houses. Labour talked about £750k value houses as being of the rich I think and £75k incomes but no one knows.

yes, I saw the CGT item in the FT. In the old days Lawson brought upper rate tax/NI down to 40% and capital gains tax upper rate to 40% (after allowing for inflation - known as indexation - over the period the asset was held) and I was not against that as I like tax purity and simplicity. The reason CGT rates went down to - well it varies but 28% I think for property sales but with no allowance of inflation was they got rid of the inflation element (and we have much less inflation now although not over the period people have owned shares and houses - some people have held them since the 1960s and in the 70s we had 60% inflation in one year only).

I just paid a heap of July 2020 income tax so am sitting here with open wounds bleeding emotionally so be nice.... the same week I just paid £20k law school fees for the twins.

(LuLu Green does not own the company - his wife does; a technical point but very important. A lot of mumsnetter housewives by the way don't work but own half their husband's company and I suppose some might own 99% of it even)

Unfortunately due to Covid, Brexit and years of underinvestment in public services, taxes are going to have to significantly. One thing has been learnt from Covid is that the health and educational services need huge investment.