Is a wealth tax the only way?

[Cuppasoupmonster]

…of raising capital for proper public service reform and not just sticking plaster ‘solutions’. Just interested to hear others thoughts.

YANBU = yes it is
YABU = no it isn’t

You seem to feel entitled to their money simply because they have more of it than you.

Imagine going for a meal with your friends and saying "you're paying the bill, Rachel, because you've got more money than the rest of us".

I think this would put a whole lot of UK land, national treasures and assets in the hands of foreign nationals... not kindly ones either.

For example, you would have farmers who have huge areas of land and expensive machinery having to sell up to pay the tax bill... but who to ? Everyone else in the UK also needs to pay their wealth tax bill, so these distressed sales would go to (for example) rich oil men from Khazakstan looking to launder their money. Same for stately homes, art and rare treasures (e.g. first edition books).

Once all the UK wealthy have been shaken down and the NHS gets the billions from the Russian Oligarchs and Oil men from America, how will it pay for the following year... and the one after that ? You can only steal from the rich for so long.

Oh please 😂 if that’s your best ‘equivalent scenario’ then you’re not really up to this debate are you.

Marketing matters, too.

Very few people think that subsidising buses through taxes is a great idea. Most would argue that passengers should pay a fare each time they travel, for the journey they make, and that fare should be set to cover the costs of that journey. The idea of contributing to the costs of running the network for journeys they don't or won't make is horrifying to most people.

But many people subscribe to a TV streaming service with more channels than they can physically watch. They are happy to contribute to the costs of them all, because what they've bought is the right to watch them whenever they want.

So why not take the same approach to buses? You have a right to ride any bus, any time, for a nominal fare. (In fact - why not make it free?). But you have to subscribe to Busflix. Your subscription will be paid through PAYE and collected by HMRC.

Now take that idea and stretch it to NHS Prime. You have bought the right to attend any A&E department in the country, any time you like. Knock yourself out. (Actually, please don't ... ). Many other public service could be marketed in the same way. But they are not ... and that is a political choice, too - just as the amount spent on them is.

Sky does it really well, and the government could learn from them.

or they are only wealthy because they are able to maneuver themselves into a position where they have enough leverage to get others to sell thier labour at a price set by them
or they are only wealthy because they have the means to hide thier money offshore
etc etc,
loads of people are more clever than wot I am, harder working, but no-one can have 1000 x the smarts of another person, or work 1000 x harder, yet the disparities in wealth are this great...orders of magnitude greater even!

"Absolutely. I read an article about high taxation in Scandinavian countries which was interesting, it interviewed a high earner who didn’t begrudge paying a lot of tax because he said he felt he was ‘investing in the society around him’. That he felt creating a pleasant, safe and educated community was as beneficial to him as a living environment as it was to the people who directly benefited from his taxes. I thought that was a really benevolent but also intelligent way of looking at it." OP

The difference here is that we are starting from a different cultural base. Scandinavian countries believe that each person has a collective responsiblity for everyone else in society. From this ingrained belief they are willing to pay high taxes in exchange for a high level of services that benefits all of society and supports social cohesion. There is a shared, mutual respect between government and the people that does not exist in the UK.

Perhaps this is a marketing issue then that @Mark19735 said we should consider.

I didn’t realize Elizabeth Warren was on mumsnet… I think Elon needs to find out who Bezo’s accountant is. I think Musk ended up paying $11B In taxes last year.

as to your other rant… nah I’m not worried about being replaced by a computer. I’ll grow and change as needed to keep relevant, until I retire if someone hasn’t stolen redistributed my retirement funds

I was trying to have a considered debate, perhaps test ideas and see how things ‘could be’, but clearly you’re not up to it.

oh well.

Clearly, which is why it’s in his best interest to pay a market rate for them. If Amazon finds itself not able to fill jobs, they’ll increase wages and benefits.

Well, she isn’t 12 years old, if that what you mean.

What we’re trying to debate. All I’m seeing is “Rich Man Bad”.

And yet you can't actually answer it properly....

Not too all. Innovative people are needed, but equity imbalance poisons society. Look around the world. I don’t want to live in a country where people rely on food banks, people are in fuel poverty and a days work doesn’t feed a family. How would you solve the cost of living crisis?
Globalisation is turning into a race to the bottom and many people live on rubbish dumps around the world, that’s not where I want to be.

You may be able to adapt, good for you but AI might be harder to out run than you think. I think there is an issue with unfettered capitalism. Is your position that everything is right with the direction of travel?

I’m a business owner and I want to treat my employees fairly. I don’t believe on stepping on others backs to climb higher. Every time we make a bigger profit, we all share in it. Am I a sucker?

No, an alternative way is to allow say £20,000 freepay of tax then 25 percent above this rate for all. Cut out benefits for people who work less than 24 hours each week except for disabled. Offer free childcare up to 25 hours for those working 24 hours per week and subsidised childcare from 26-32 hours per week for all children over 3 months and up to school age. More employment coaches to help people back into work.

Rich people enjoy status. They like paying more for stuff to demonstrate their wealth. See, for example, designer clothes. Or jewels. Or fine art. Or racehorses. Or those silent auctions at corporate events where daft people shell out £500 for a cream tea to show off how rich they are.

Funny how the same doesn't apply to taxes.

You should be able to chose your tax rate. Basic rates, for basic people. Higher rates, for higher folk. That could then be your formal designation and title, so you can show off to everyone how rich you are ... like an HRH ... Higher Rate Hero.

Might I suggest you pick one thing to debate, you’re trying to cover climate change, globalization, capitalism, equality, and technology in one post. This is after leading with wealth inequality and workers rights. All of this in a thread about taxation and wealth redistribution.

Perhaps if you focused on one or maybe two of those topics you would get some takers for your debate.

For the record that debate won’t be with me, as I already know the answer to the only question that I would ask, thereby ending the debate. “Do your employees earn the same as you and profit the same as you do from your business?”

But good luck with the topic, sadly it’s interesting, but no one ever moves from their starting position and the same tropes get pulled out over and over again.

It’s already 40%. How much higher do you want IHT to be?

And do countries with capital gains also pay stamp duty?

I am not against higher taxes. But taxes should be at the point of earning. You shouldn’t be taxed extra because your good at saving your money and putting it away rather than frittering it away. My parents have never earns mega bucks. My mum was one of six who grew up on a farm in rural Scotland and my dad the son of two poor people who grew up crammed into back to backs in the Midlands. They worked hard and made good choices. And now live on a gated street next to footballers. That’s social mobility if I ever knew it.

Er sort of like economics, innit. Can’t tax what isn’t there. The whole lots linked.

Anyway, I said I’m not a communist, so no, but our earnings are single multiples of each other and I’m the MD

Anyway. I’m off too

Answer what? You didn’t ask anything.

You shouldn’t be taxed extra because your good at saving your money and putting it away rather than frittering it away.

Why? Saving money isn’t a good thing for society, as it is just sat there and not in circulation. ‘Frittering’ money away means it is recirculating.

I can confidently predict that no amount of marketing will change the UK mindset to a Scandinavian one. It has taken many centuries for Nordic countries to reach the point where they believe that the individual benefits when the whole of society benefits.

What they have is a symbiotic relationship between government and people working to achieve their social, economic and political aims. Nordic countries not only have a tradition of, but more importantly, the means to fund social investments that link economic, labour market, welfare and social policies in a joined up effort.

I don't see Brits ever converting to the "all in" Nordic way of communal responsibility. The opposite of which is the ultra individualistic "Tax is theft" brigade in the USA.

I can confidently predict that no amount of marketing will change the UK mindset to a Scandinavian one
I dont know if you are right @MigsandTiggs, but even if fairness is unachievable I think we still have to push for it or things will get even more unfair. Power laws and the like mean that money will always attract more money, a bit like gravity....but we still have to try and push in the other direction! (imo)

My savings mean should I need a care home, the state won't need to pay for it.

A little bit of background (copied from last year's thread on this subject, which was copied from 2020's thread):

Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden all had wealth taxes and abolished them, leaving Norway, Spain, and Switzerland as the only countries that still have one.

France (which is the most heavily taxed country in Europe, a major reason being the retirement age of 62) keeps toying with the idea. Up to 2017 (when they mainly abolished it), 10,000 French citizens had left France taking 35 billion euros with them over the previous 15 years.

The rich find wealth taxes easy to avoid. If for example, farmland is exempt from a wealth tax, the rich purchase lots of exempt farmland, borrowing heavily to do so. The borrowing reduces the net worth of their other taxable assets.

Labour tried very hard to introduce a wealth tax in the 1970s. Denis Healey said "We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle."