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 necessarily true. To discourage behaviour we disapprove of, to internalise externalities, to signal political priorities, becuase we set the tax a long time ago and now it’s too politically troublesome to change, becuase we have treaty obligation to do to so, etc etc.

Or just becuase the politicians thought it would raise tax but it fact it doesn’t.

Taxes that cost more to run or have negative effects on the country are ‘a thing’

Labour has a knack of not considering those they hit have choices

It's a worthy question and surprised some people think all taxes are beneficial to the economy
( you might want to see the ni rise and the fallout for starters )

If your comment was true you’d clarify

Your posts are conflicting
It makes no sense to say everyone has an obligation to pay towards their country, as you have done,
whilst
also saying the chance of moving and working abroad was taken away from people by Brexit

You either believe everyone should stay and pay towards the country they were born in
or
you don’t.

and No! People who move abroad to live and work should not have to pay taxes here aswell. ( unless they keep investments here)

Willing to pay more but wanting it to go to good places.

@newbluesofa. Will these patriotic millionaires ever get the government who will prioritise the things they, the patriotic millionaires want?
They don’t like this government and presumably hate Tories and Reform so they won’t pay more in tax while any of those are in power.
However if a very left wing government ever comes to power then they’ll be forced to pay more tax whether they approve of the policies or not.

Quite so.

Perhaps all of us should have a say where our tax revenue gets allocated…

Well at least you're honest about what kind of person you are. I think you're ignorant if you think that many people are not working hard and still finding it hard to make ends meet or keep a roof over their heads. However I'm sure you don't care about that and might even say support the reintroduction of workhouses for those feckless lazy poor people who just couldn't make the effort get rich themselves. As long as your investments keep paying off I'm sure you aren't to bothered about what is actually making you the money, no matter how unethical or predatory, as long as you're ok that's all that matter I guess. Personally for me I actually give a damn if other people are suffering.

My impression is that this would not be a problem

We all get one vote? Would you like to be able to buy more votes like you can in America? Do you think that’s okay?

What are you two on about?

We do, it's called voting?

As soon as a government introduces more wealth taxes then they will have to pay them, no matter who the government is!

I was responding to the person who was saying 'well if they're willing to pay more tax why don't they do it now voluntarily?' Because if it's purely up to them, then yes they want to make sure the tax is being well spent.

@Southwestten I literally don't know what you mean by They don’t like this government and presumably hate Tories and Reform so they won’t pay more in tax while any of those are in power. yes they would if they introduced a wealth tax they'd have to pay it!

Why are you arguing? There is a literally group of millionaires saying 'please tax us more' and you're arguing against that? There's no reward for being the biggest bootlicker

‘Lower inequality generally leads to faster GDP growth’? Is there data to back this claim? The USA is an increasingly unequal country and it’s GDP has grown about 50% more than EU zone over the last decade or so.

I fully agree that reducing inequality is good for society but it doesn’t necessarily mean there will be an increase in GDP. A decrease in inequality could also mean the living standards of the richest and middle earners have dropped. Many poor countries have little inequality and a low GDP.

Well said. When people make these kinds of arguments, 'you shouldn't look to redistribute other people's wealth go out and earn it for yourself', it really sounds very similar to the post civil war rhetoric in the USA.

To quote Hamilton:
Jefferson: In Virginia we plant seeds in the ground we create
You just wanna move our money around
Hamilton: Yeah keep ranting, we know who's really doing the planting

Plenty of rich people have become rich off the backs of others, from exploiting workers or tenants, and I'm not interested in placating them

“Abroad”?

Abroad where? What admin?

There is research, yes. Though as with much of economics it’s not uncontested.
I think Ostry and Berg are the main economists championing this view, though it’s a while since I looked at the field in any depth.

So lets say a wealth tax that resulted in some other cost that meant the revenue increase was negligible.

I think if people really understood and believed that, many would not want it.

But there might be people who would think it was simply useful to reduce the wealth gap I suppose.

But it seems quite wasteful even to a person who supported that goal.

What are you on about?

Labour lie and breach their manifesto promises, or have you conveniently forgotten that?

What has that got to do with anything? Where have I ever expressed support for labour?

FGS, in a previous post, you stated:

‘I don't think a discussion with you is going to go anywhere’

So, why do you keep engaging me - honour what you posted.

What does “contribute to society” mean to you?

The wealthy would move abroad. Switzerland, Milan, IAE, America - all countries want rich people because they bring huge tax revenue

the cost of working out everyone’ assets would be astronomical. Asset values would also be changing all the time.

Shall we send all the migrants back then - surely they should support their countries too?

This is embarrassing. The entire discussion with me you have failed to actually engage with anything I have said, instead responding with nonsequitors or projecting things onto me that I've never said. Multiple time I've questioned whether you have actually even read what I have said.

This is so often the problem with trying to have a good faith discussion and engage with people, that they're quick to respond by parroting some line they've heard (with a real tone of arrogance) but you quickly see a complete lack of critical thinking or ability to actually engage in a discussion.

I'm happy for people to disagree with me but I wish you could do it with your own individual and critical thought, rather than weirdly ranting about things I have never brought up in order to toe the party line. Again, there's no prize for being the biggest bootlicker.

You're now asking me to stop engaging with you because you've realised you can't actually have a discussion with me. My judgement of you earlier was right, a discussion with you goes nowhere because you're not able to actually critically engage in any meaningful way. How embarrassing

The proposed wealth tax is on unrealized gains. Asset values can go down as well as up, house prices can fall, share prices can fall, pension pots can decrease. The proposal is a percentage on an amount that has not been realized (I.e. sold) - you don’t actually have that money until you sell the asset. You could be paying the 1% for ten years but at the end when you sell your house it could be worth less than when you bought it. And you might think that unlikely but house prices in London are falling fast. Taxes on unrealized gains are fully bananas. Rich people will leave, entrepreneurs will not start businesses in the UK.

the UK already taxes realized gains - CGT. CGT is a wealth tax.

Let’s hope that you now honour your previous undertaking.

Another failure to do so would be embarrassing for you.

Actually I think the more we engage the more embarrassing it is for YOU. It is a waste of my time though so I'll stop now