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

I don't know.

It's debatable what the "super rich" people's share of the payment ought to be. Rishi's wife is super rich but I'm not sure why she has to pay for the rest of us to live. People who earn more pay more tax. And might consume fewer public resources - private chauffeur, education, healthcare. And they might even pay more workers - cleaners, drivers, assistants etc.

If you go out with someone who's richer than you, do you suppose that their share of a dinner you both ate is more than 50%? I don't think so.

Rich people are internationally mobile anyway.

People aren't getting it because they can't see beyond the immediate fear that this might hurt them.

Most companies employ tens, sometimes hundreds of tax advisors to work out how much corporation tax they should pay. And most companies make about 10% profit each year, and pay around 20% corporation tax. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but ballpark that's about right for most companies, most years.

It would be exactly the same as issuing 2% new shares each year and giving them to the government (to sell). A 'wealth tax' of 2% that takes one clerical assistant 5 mins to calculate with zero scope for error, compared to an 'income tax' (called corporation tax) that takes hundreds of people the best part of a year to calculate with often a great many errors requiring hundreds of hours of audit time to find and eliminate.

There's no conceptual or moral difference between the two.

(Unless you work in financial services, and earn your living as an auditor, or are a politician, and want to make the tax code so confusing that people can't see you skimming off public money for private beneficiaries)..

But yeah op. Let’s now say 2.5

how are you proposing all those assets get valued? The report you posted is just a vague set of aspirations and many on here don’t think a wealth tax is either fair, or workable (I appreciate those are 2 separate arguments)

No, going after tax evaders is a better option. I just mentioned this is another thread, if everyone paid the right amount of tax most of our problems would be dealt with.

Ah, here we go again. People in my age group and older who bought our houses when, admittedly, they were more affordable. People who worked hard all their lives, who perhaps had negative equity in the early nineties, who faced raging inflation (not just a modern problem), people who bought homes for their families and who were relieved when their mortgages were paid off. Yes, our houses are now worth considerably more than we could ever have imagined but it does not mean that we are any wealthier in terms of spending or having money to spare.

I think you’re missing the fact that any new issue of shares dilutes sd therefore devalues those already in circulation. It doesn’t create any value, and doesn’t mean the company is paying anything, the shareholders are.

if that’s what you’re trying to do, ok

Can't quote for some reason but this:

"f your expensive London property is owned by a Jersey company and it is sold, you sell the company, not the property, no tax"

Is just so wrong. There is so much on this thread that is so wrong.

That's exactly what I meant. The shareholders are paying a wealth tax. Just as they currently 'pay' the corporation tax (their company is worth less because it gives that money to the treasury)

Shareholders already pay taxes on dividends, and on the capital gain. Why another tax on top? Or are you saying instead of?

People who own or occupy houses already pay a wealth tax, unless they are on benefits.

Council tax is based on what some assessor thought your house was worth in 1991. If it was built since then, it's based on what they thought your house would have been worth back then. The amount you pay is based on that value. It is a form of wealth tax. Blunt, crude, stupid ... but still a wealth tax.

Just coz something has a different name, doesn't make it a different thing.

I even put it in bold ...

Lord have mercy. Re-read the very first line of that post. Look in the mirror. Do the click-finger-gun thing, and say "That's me".

:)

Inheritance tax, capital gains.

Awww… I don’t think I’m going to get an answer on the OP’s job I think I can strike economist as a probable profession.

So are you advocating for a wealth tax or not?
i see your points, that there’s already kind of one for property, you could cleverly introduce a convoluted one for shares. What about all other assets? Should there be an overall one, or many discrete ones for each asset type? I’m not sure what you’re advocating tbh

I think your proposals would be disincentive to be a home owner and ultimately, lead to the end of home ownership. Companies will own the majority of houses and they will then charge rents in line with the increases in taxes because they are in business to make a profit. High rent prices will drive increased homelessness and put more pressure on existing stocks of social housing.

I think the idea is conceptually interesting, but fraught with challenges and would be politically difficult to implement. We don't have a strong enough government, or smart enough ministers, to explain how it would work to a sceptical public. (See also about 160 posts on this thread!)

Generally, I'd rather income was taxed transparently, fairly, and properly. Broaden the tax base, make more people actually pay it, and make each of them pay a smaller individual share.

Problem is - we actually need people to spend to boost the economy. Saving might be viewed as more virtuous, but it's crap for keeping businesses afloat.

Can’t disagree with that tbh other than I broadly think it’s not a good idea to try and tax assets, regardless of whether it’s possible or not.

im sure you mean broadening the tax base upwards (more higher earners pay)?

Ah but there’s the rub. Occupiers pay, nothing to do with the landlord. I can own 1000 homes and pay nothing on them if I rent them out. That’s not a wealth tax.

Yep. That’s why I find the concept of people sitting on huge amounts of cash to be morally problematic. There’s being ‘careful’ then there’s just hoarding.

No, I don’t talk about work on here, for very good reasons!

Personally I think it's a load of rubbish and a very idealistic way of thinking that in practise hampers social mobility and has law of unintended consequences written all over it in terms of reducing ambition, entrepreneurship etc

Imagine being working class, spending your life that you should buy a house, save for a pension etc and try and achieve something for your hard work - only to be told that actually these are bad things and you'll get taxed £x for having them each year. All that will happen is those who can absorb the tax, will, and will work to hide their wealth and those who will get stung by it (the middle or aspiring middle class) end up swimming against the tide trying to improve their lot in life.

I have no issue with taxing higher earners, i pay enough tax to support multiple families when I break it down and that's my responsibility as it should be everyone who earns a good income but a wealth tax isn't the answer.

Finally, you also have to factor in that all these 'tax the rich' stances are great on paper but people ignore that the top few percent of earners in this country pay the vast vast majority of income tax in this country (which is right), but there's such a fine balance of increasing taxes Vs people moving away that you'd end up actually reducing tax income if it goes too high. I personally think every one of us needs to pay a slightly higher income tax, but we should primarily target big companies and the tax breaks etc and look at reducing wastage in the public sector, acknowledging that will take many years of hard work - though I'd argue we could reduce the layers of local government immediately will very little impact.

Allowing councils to increase council tax as high as they can, and then making them responsible for more services will simply entrench inequality. Councils in wealthy areas will be able to raise huge amounts and fund fantastic services for their affluent residents. Councils in poor areas will not.

No - spending is what keeps a country's economy going. It immediately creates revenue for the government via VAT. The seller of the product or service makes a profit and returns more of it to the government via his/her own tax. They employ people who also pay tax on it, and so it continues.

It is part of a government's job to keep money circulating, otherwise it would all end up in the hands of a few, potentially becoming non-productive, and the whole system would collapse.

Those who have the money to do it need to spend more, not less, though ideally in our own country rather than abroad. Keep it flowing!

"Imagine being working class, spending your early life striving to get a good job and try and achieve something for your hard work - only to be told that actually this is a bad thing and you'll get taxed £x each year."

It's no different.