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.

Nothing new? People claiming what has happened hasn't happened and giving false data claims? That needs to be challenged.
What new thing do you want adding to the debate? The pressure it has put on already overstretched state SEND services? I can give you that?
The increased cost to councils of transport for DC which have moved from independent to stage? I can give you that.
Which "new" aspect would you like adding?

I’d just rather a society where paying tax was not thought of as the devil incarnated

we have private equity firms making profit from children in foster care, rather than have a society where children aren’t a commodity

the less tax paid then not only the disparity grows between wealth and poverty but also the poverty gets so much worse

id rather we all paid more into society proportionally. Greed has taken over

@Southernecho agree

Seems like you just want to cover up the truth. Twisty was responding to a factually incorrect statement, which is in the interests of everyone. That is everyone apart from the current Government who would like the wool to be pulled over our eyes and make us believe that the education tax is generating lots of lovely cash for state schools….or is it housing that it’s being used for?!!!!

But we are paying in more and yet services are getting worse!

@twistyizzy not interested in arguing with you about school fees.

I think this is one occasion where "shut up, Piggy" is entirely appropriate

The data is out there, its published by the Government.

UK tax receipts reached a record high of £858.9 billion in the 2024-2025 tax year, a 3.7% increase from the previous year. This continued upward trend is primarily driven by factors such as frozen tax thresholds (fiscal drag) and rising asset values, which pull more individuals and estates into higher tax brackets or into the tax net for the first time.

Anyone can challenge the data all they like but its still the data.

I think there are two things that people mean when they say "wealth tax" and end up talking at cross purposes

A) we should tax the wealthy more (by any means possible to increase money from them including by taxing their income or corporate income)

B) we should tax wealth more (not necessarily on just the very wealthy, for example we should remove ISAs, have everything subject to IHT, etc - if you earn £1 through wealth appreciation it should be taxed the same as earning £1 through waged work)

IME MN and the public in general use wealth to mean "those rich fuckers" not some kind of financial point about accumulated assets of any size (as opposed to income). Which makes these threads a bit confusing/frustrating

But we are paying in more and yet services are getting worse

But what would you expect the outcome to be after no investment and nearly 2 decades of low growth? Throw in an ageing population and taxes can only go one way.

How are you going to get growth? Higher taxes and borrowing won’t do it.

@OneAmberFinch yes I was about to say similar. Taxing wealth & the wealthy more are not the same but get conflated.

So you’re economically illiterate. As are many people. You don’t understand that there’s a limit. Look up the Laffer curve.

The vast majority of high earners (whatever that means), are content to pay tax for the system to help others and themselves live in a civilised society. However there’s a point when there’s much more take than give, and that’s where we are. The benefits system is bulging and abused by millions. Labour are about to make it worse, again. Lifting the 2 child cap? Done a favour. So here we are, we’re going to keep pouring water into the broken bucket.

Instead of trying to grab more and more cash, the holes in the bucket need to be fixed. For example, the Benefit system needs to be overhauled. Small businesses encouraged not decimated. Etc

Sadly we will never get these things with a shitty nasty Labour government who think everything and everyone should be average. And who actively discourage aspiration and success. Without a booming economy, it all goes to shit as we’re seeing now, and as we will continue to see with this nasty Labour government.

@EasternStandard was my post unclear? I am confused by your conflation of two separate things.

Higher taxes are inevitable where we are now, why do you think that equals growth?

Precisely, the lower and middle earners aren’t. That’s why our services are so shit compared to Scandinavian countries. And it means that the UK is bad value for high earners which makes it difficult to attract and retain the best talent. That’s why we are in such a mess.

We don't know how much tax is being generated, as i said early, that'll be know next year but there has been no exodus to the State sector, PS roll numbers have fallen by 1.9%, 11000 children, broadly in line with demographic changes.

State sector numbers have fallen by 0.6%, not risen as would be expected if children went to the state side.

But this thread isn't about School fees, there have been many such threads.

Absolutely this. Politics of envy is rife. We should even be considering ways to give 'the wealthy' tax breaks and generally make the UK an enticing place to be financially fir them, as overall this would create MORE money which Labour could use to support all the groups it says it wants to. I can't see how this isn't common sense. Labour wants to increase benefits and give them to more people, plus give ever-higher pay rises to the public sector. You can agree or disagree with this, but the only way to achieve it is to get more money overall for the economy, which you do by encouraging rich people to be here creating wealth.
It's exasperating. They'd rather have less money to spend than let 'the wealthy' have more than average.

I’m asking what you’d do. The current approach which is higher taxes and borrowing won’t get growth. Maybe you have better options?

I suppose one way it might work is that people would look at ways of spending or otherwise redistributing their wealth to avoid it going to the tax man, which would result in wider distribution of funds in the economy. Or they would refuse work that they would have done because the tax burden made it pointless for them to do it, making that work available for others to do. So in principle, yes, you could say that a tax policy that doesn't result in people paying tax to the government could still benefit the economy and others overall.

The reality is that many wealthy people are not paying "Scandinavian level taxes" as the UK has more loop holes, special reliefs than say Denmark were there is a broader base and fewer opportunities for shifting of income, hence why higher receipts means better public services like my relatives receive. It's not a like for like system so you can't make those sweeping generalisations you'd have to look at it in detail.

Where that should read not, "were".

We are in a mess because of our very unequal housing market (we basically ever increasing made house prices our economy) which has hindered productivity & years of underinvestment particularly in infrastructure & younger people who are the tax payers of tomorrow. Look at our housing benefit costs compared to other European countries, look at childcare costs. This all makes income increasing taxes at the owner end very difficult.

It's not a like for like system so you can't make those sweeping generalisations you'd have to look at it in detail.

Yes, it’s pointless to compare one element to other countries who have completely different systems.

Really? i just said that PAYE taxes are disproportionate compared unearned ones.
Always helps to read a few posts before coming out with the insults.

Hamg on, you said it has brought more in than predicted. Now you say we havent got the figures? So you made that first claim up?
Where is your data from please.

I have given you the actual data which is Labour said 3K would leave in Yr 1 when 25K left.
17K left before July ie between Sept 24-July 25 17K pupils left independent schools.

You keep on stating things but haven't shown the data.

We are on 5% attrition rate in Yr 1, Labour predicted that number by Yr 4. We are 3 years ahead already. When the % hits 10% then the net income is £0. That is from Treasury own figures.