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

Need to stop throwing money at these services

inefficient
wasteful
Waste huge amounts on riubbudh
beeds pensions reforms

Complete reform

tackle obesity for a start
personal responsibility
not rushing to gp for antibiotics at drop of hat

people not expecting everything for free all the time and huge sense of entitlement for state to provide everything for them

fumdsmentally against any more taxes being thrown at these orgs ! May as well burn it as v little actually ends up on frontline resources

You raised the issue, I'm giving my opinion, which I assumed was the point. Still, we've reached page 5 without you mentioning taking money off 'rich pensioners.'

Of course. But in the short term it would pay for pay rises to stop yet more staff quitting, at least

But it would only help if thats where the influx of tax got distributed too.
The government could make education its priority now, it wont or the government could make the NHS its priority now, it wont.

Its a massive issue. I think its easier for the government to hit massive companies first surely ???

OP do you have a reason why corporations couldn't be hit first?

I am, it seems that every time I turn around someone has a bright idea to rob me blind redistribute my wealth.

Op
you keep parroting “read the report” but it’s incredibly vague and you seem to be supporting the idea, so it’s not unreasonable to ask what you think?

Thinking that because you, by an accident of birth, were born in the same country as a wealthy person, it means you should be entitled to some of their wealth is greedy.

By that logic, you must feel all tax is unfair? And greedy?

Plus isn’t inheritance an ‘accident at birth’ as well?

What do you do for work can I ask?

Because it’s a figment of your imagination. And I thought the point of threads, according to you, is only to discuss precise figures and complex ideas rather than just ‘opinions’?

Citing property equity gains is just pure envy. And I state that as someone who has not benefited from this. Like any investment, you work to afford the upfront cost; whether it goes up or down is out of your control.

On that note, if you are going to tax gains in equity, does this mean society is on the hook to bail out or refund those who have made a loss when they have to sell in a negative equity situation?
If you want to socialize the gains - you have to socialize the losses too, right? That's how it works with shares.

Bog standard middle manager, you?

It's all just different accounting treatments. In a normal, functioning economy with no perverse incentives, things you own are recorded in your personal ledger as "assets", and those assets are used to generate rents/dividends which are recorded in your personal ledger as "income". In a perfect capitalist market-based economy, all ownership of assets will tend towards optimal resource allocation, with values rising and falling as demand rises and falls, and all assets should eventually generate the same 'normal' level of income, adjusted for risk.

The thing is, our markets aren't perfect. So firstly, nobody sane rents their own house from themselves. If they did, they'd have more "income" and would be liable for more income tax. (There is actually a strong case for this - called imputed rent). Secondly, wealthy people don't actually pay for many goods/services they consume. They stay in their rich mates villas and yachts, fly in their private jets, wear custom made clothes hand made by a couture tailor which they get for free. They provide services and connections to each other for free on a reciprocal basis. None of these transactions are taxed because they are invisible. Only the plebs pay VAT, Air Passenger Duty, Income Tax etc. etc. Because being wealthy is seen as a mechanism to avoid having to make (taxable) transactions, manipulating wealth rather than engaging in normal financial transactions is actually a method for avoiding tax. That is why people see wealth taxes as an infringement - it's because they don't currently pay the income taxes/VAT etc. that the little people are already paying because they don't own the assets and means of production.

Think about it ... why do people want to own their homes? Because renting money from a bank feels different to renting housing from a landlord. And the promise at the end of it is that one day, your housing costs will be zero. (Not quite true c.f. see council tax ... but that's the general sentiment).

If we fixed some of those things, and let the consequences settle down and people got accustomed to the new ways, there should be no difference at all between taxing wealth or taxing income. Not economically, anyway. Psychologically, there's still a difference. But then ... why go to all that trouble, and why not stick with taxing income - and do it properly?

Then how do you have all this wealth?

@Ledwood85 of course it’s envy! Perfectly justifiable too. Would you say the same to somebody in a third world country who was ‘envious’ of our lifestyle and situation?

I'm going to assume that made sense when you typed it.

does this mean society is on the hook to bail out or refund those who have made a loss when they have to sell in a negative equity situation

It did it was called the bank bailout.

If you can’t understand it that’s not my issue.

Now I know you’re either trolling or don’t understand anything financial

I’m assuming a trick question since you have yet to quantify ’wealth’.

I could be the proudest owner of multiple investments/multiple houses/large bank account, a modest house/retirement funds/run of the mill bank account, or a cardboard box/chewing gum wrapper/a few coins in my pocket.

All 3 scenarios can be considered wealth.

I still haven’t heard what you do for a living?

In principle, I'd be up for this. Higher taxes and better public facilities. Scandinavian approach

But, my worry is that middle earners end up paying more and the super rich find ways to avoid paying their share

So basically everything people have saved hard for? Fuck no. We couldn’t pay it anyway without taking money out of our mortgage, pensions, insurance etc which isn’t possible. We’d have nothing to live on if we had to pay it out of our wages.

Whenever this sort of idea is mooted, it never, ever affects the people who are its target because they have expensive lawyers who can get round every loophole under the sun. The people it always, always affects are those who are fairly comfortably off but with no spare cash for extras. People like me.

Middle earners don’t have 1.5m plus assets. I think only the top 4% do (from memory). But I would be open to raising it if practical, to 2.5 etc.

1.5m across a property and a pension fund when someone retires is very much middle earner territory. I don’t think you understand how much a pension fund could be, especially if it’s a final salary scheme

(that’s putting aside how hard it is to value those!)