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.

And at first the number of women campaigning for the vote was small. All movements have to start somewhere

Whoops

Founded in 2010, hows it working out for them?

To qualify you only need 1m in income or 5m US in assets. Hardly rock and roll.

I struggle to otherwise compare them to the suffragettes 😂

Hardly. Everyone must fulfil their tax obligation. These people want a greater one for those who can afford it.

I am very far from their wealth level but should prob be paying more. In the meantime, because drops of water don’t do anything to raise the water level and lift all boats, I will def continue giving to charities focusing on those in greatest need rather than making extra tax contributions.

I would start by closing loopholes.

FWIW I don’t like cliff edges but the posts about the UK having a particularly high tax burden are simply not true.

Shall we have a whip round?

So yes then. Virtue signalling. Talking of lifting boats. You know when the highest rate tax was cut from 50% to 45% - the tax take increased? You don’t raise the tide by getting rid of productive workers or making them change behaviour.

A far cry from ‘it’s ok for the wealthy to pick and choose when to pay tax’ . That is the direct quotation from you I was responding to.

Its raised more than expected because PS hiked fees more than the Govt thought they would, 14% opposed to the 10% they anticipated.

So VAT is being applied to higher amount.

The actual amount wont be known though until next year, which is what i said earlier, being misquoted is par for the pp.

I don't really see why you're acting like this is some kind of gotcha?

I was talking with some friends the other day, we lean more liberal and socialist. In theory, we're happy to pay higher tax to contribute even though we're all fairly low earners. However, we wouldn't want to pay more tax right now, because right now we don't agree with where that tax money would go. If a government prioritised tackling inequality and funded things like education, youth services, access to employment, and housing, then we'd be happy to contribute to this. I think wealthy people are allowed to think the same. The whole 'tax wealth not work' movement going on at the moment is about exactly this. Willing to pay more but wanting it to go to good places.

Well that is what is happening with this group. Exactly what is happening in fact and being justified no less. Yet when the ordinary worker does the same, they are sickening. This non-partisan organisation which happens to be a business.

Thats incorrect, no economist believes that, the amount raised increased rapidly because people waited for the the cut - Forestalling, it then levelled off.

It is true though that the 50% rate wasn't a success, which is why HMRC advised it to be cut back again.

???????

Gotcha? I think you might be projecting?

By contrast, I am a high earner and on the right. This government do not represent me, and likely never will. They are controlled by the back benches, and the unions (as you know). Reeves lacks competence and is a liar, and I do not trust this government as a wise custodian of my tax (and nor should you).

Wealth, incidentally, is often derived from effort and smart work, and a series of correct and prudent decisions taken over years - the exact opposite to the repeated dumb life decisions some people make.

Whichever comes first - either the government falling, or losing the next GE, cannot come soon enough. The Patriotic Millionaires are a circus side show, and have little to no bearing on the elephant in the room - this government’s ineptitude and duplicity.

I have just looked into your claim about revenue after the rate cut.

In the first year an extra £8B was raised. After that there was a very small consistent loss, about £100M pa. Essentially no impact. This is according to HMRC. As the rate had fallen this does reflect improved economic conditions, which was to be expected as we continued to work our way out if the crisis.

George Osborne took a lot of credit for the initial improvement, then went quiet. Labour and some think tanks said the initial bump was likely due to high earners deferring income until the rate cut.

Incidentally, and off topic, I bring good tidings.

DMGT has agreed to buy the Daily Telegraph for GBP 500 mn.
For many, the new merger will seem a perfect fit. Both newspapers are rightwing, fiercely opinionated and as influential among their loyal Middle England readerships as in Westminster.

A reminder that the DT scooped Rayner and her SDLT monkey business, as well as the BBC’s Trump footage manipulation and bias, in addition to Reeves’s recent ‘amnesia’ surrounding her BTL licence, ahem.

Still has to be approved by Nandy? if so, hopefully she'll tell them where to go.

Remind me again where the DM ownership is registered for tax purposes?

Oh I see, you think wealthy people are wealthy because they're clever and hardworking while poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy. I don't think a discussion with you is going to go anywhere.

Re your last sentence, at last, we are in agreement.

Nah, it’s a shoe-in.

Besides, Nandy has her hands full with the slightly more thorny matter of the BBC. She has the capacity to make a complete horlicks of that.

Remind me why the Guardian are trying to shake down their readers for 4 quid? Are they that skint? Ergo, if they paywalled it, nobody would read it….

We shall see..... a previous sale fell through due to political bias...

..and the DM for tax purposes, all ok?

100%, couldn’t be better.

You seem nervous at the prospect?

And the Guardian, why so broke?

October circulation estimates, extrapolated.

• The Sun: 550,000
• The Sun on Sunday: 500,000
• The Sunday Times: 260,000
• The Times: 140,000
• Daily Telegraph: 150,000
• Sunday Telegraph: 100,000
• The Observer: 80,000
• The Guardian: 60,000

TBF the DM Group appears to be registered in the UK for tax purposes.

However, Jonathan Rothemere (sp?) inherited from his father, who was domiciled in France, via trusts based in Jersey and Bermuda and seems to bypassed a good amount of IHT as a result. JR is said to be worth over £750M.

Hands up if you think JR has the regular person’s interests at heart.

Not necessarily. Most footballers/entertainers etc set themselves up as PLC’s, have their salaries paid in, then mostly get paid in dividends whilst deducting as much as they can for expenses. The idea that everyone earning millions per year is paying 45% tax is very naive.

I must admit that I'd love to see certain billionaires (Musk, Thiel, Trump, various Russians...) publicly fleeced. As for a more acceptable purpose, call it a deterrent to their corruption.