If a wealth tax brought in zero revenue to the government, would people still support it? If yes, why?

[percypiggy200]

I’m curious and I’d love to know people’s reasoning.

Not really twee, more the truth. If you are wealthy to the point of being taxed in it as this thread proposes, surely you can afford a house as Nd a pension. You aren't wealthy if you don't have those things are you, how would you qualify for a wealth tax if you don't own anything?

Its not excuses, i ve lived in Sweden, the tax burden is very high, far higher than here.
Their overall tax burden is around 58% for high earners and whilst the figure of 62% for UK hi earners is often quoted, thats on income above 100k.... to 125k, not below or above.

You also ref an FT article that doesn't even show what you thought it did - economic illiteracy indeed!

PS I agree with your suspicion however, @GetOverTheEgo

The conversation evolved didn’t it. You have taken issue with that as it moved on to an issue that makes Labour look pretty bad. You were confused and trying to debate back with gotchas that were not quite gotchas. Kept banging on about Dubai. You have been responding to many posts that have evolved from the original op. Now you want to try and shut down any bad news that you can’t disprove from the evolving conversation. Does MNHQ now you’re a mod now?

I know what is showed. The difference in tax take between earners. But black is white obviously. We don’t tax our higher earners excessively whilst directly contradicting that statement. Oh dear.

I find many opinions on MN pointless and odd. The holders of those opinions have every right to express them, though.

As you say, it’s not NK.

Did it?

Unfortunately, you are very confused about Scandinavian tax systems I suggest you stop referring to them to make your point as you don't have a cogent argument.

Your points are incoherent so on that note I'm out!

I kind of do know what I am talking about. That’s why you’re attempting to personally attack, shut down an evolving conversation and repeatedly quoting.

Ugh here we go:

• Labour predicted 3K would leave in Yr 1. 25 K left
• see attached Treasury figures which only came out in court case. We are at 5% attrition so you can see how much that brings in. When we get to 10% (which we will) then the net income is £0.
• it was never going to raise £1.6B cos they forgot to exclude the number who paid upfront prior to end July plus the late exemptions they had to tag on eg uplift in CEA etc.

Basically they lied and some people believed them

You clearly don't know what you re talking about and where have i even implied high earners aren't taxed highly???

No i haven't, you re just making stuff up now.

The % difference between tax rates doesn't indicate the overall burden and the cliff edge only affects people between certain amounts, plus not all high earners need child care.

Someone on 200k has an overall tax rate of 38% in the UK, the overall rate for a Swede on a similar salary will be north of 52%.

Do you not know any young people leaving? Is everyone your age, retired and staying.

It’s not that unusual for people to move and seek opportunities. Do you really get as annoyed as you did at the op when they do?

Maybe but its true.

Lakshmi Mittal the latest to announce he is leving according to Evening Standard.

@twistyizzy

Numerous critical and neutral sources (eg Schools Week, BBC) say that 11,000 left the first year, nothing like the 25,000 you cite. There are 650,000 private school pupils in the UK so that is not even 2%. Even 25,000 would be 3.8%.

I have no idea of the context for your chart so I cannot assess it

I think what OP is asking is dont you know by taxing the rich all of us will leave, so you just wont get our money. You'll never get it so dont try.

So if you stop triyng to tax us, we'll come back and I really miss london so just accept you'll never get out money.

I quoted these figures too, apparently i was making them up..

I would simply like a context. As I provide one for others it is reasonable to expect the same courtesy. I missed your post but I will look for it

So a SAHM living in a foreign county is not allowed to debate or have an opinion now?

This argument appears frequently on Mumsnet. It is very naive. And for all we know, individuals may already be making extra tax contributions.

Drops of water do not raise the level of the reservoir. The group is arguing for a policy change that will make a difference

'Change their behaviour' 😂 Yes, rich people pay financial advisors to dodge as much tax as possible. First sign of potentially paying more tax and some of them would move to places with terrible women's rights just to clutch more cash. If these slimy people are already dodging paying tax why would I want to keep them in my country? Maybe a wealth tax would weed out the people like this, good riddance