AIBU to think a 2% wealth tax on the rich is unfair?

[Mrspepperpotpot]

i just saw an article and petition from oxfam saying if we taxed the ‘super rich’ 2% it would solve a lot of problems. They were suggesting 2% on anyone worth 10 million. Everyone in the comments agreed

I just don’t understand this mentality. High earners are hit at every turn. They usually use private health and private schools, pay the most tax, get hit with tax on savings, IHT, land tax, pensions etc etc Why on earth should people earn money to be taxed on it, to then be taxed on it again and again.

Why do people begrudge others having money when they’ve worked extremely hard to get it? Why isn’t there uproar about benefits instead?

I know this will never actually happen but the amount of people who seem to want it to is astonishing

I don't think you can broadly put 'millionaires' into any high wealth category. About one in five housholds are worth more than £1m when the house and other assets are included.

Didn't Labour define "super rich" as earning £80k at one point in the last few years? Shadow Chancellor if I remember correctly?

£80k is the top 3%!

Correction (I checked): it was indeed John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, but the threshold was £70k, not £80k.

That, a quick google says was John McDonnell. And he is on the extreme left of the party. I don’t think it was representative of Labour as a whole. He didn’t describe it, according to google, as super rich but just rich.

It might annoy some but many multi millionaires and above have said they are open and support such a tax.

I honestly think some people have no idea just how rich some people really are compared to themselves.

People do not all think of rich people as ‘rich bastards’ either

I didn't say all of them feel this way, @Monty36, but a proportion certainly do, as numerous comments on the thread show

And I covered "not all assets can be moved abroad" in the comment about ownership of the assets, which is a very different thing and already widely used

”Parasites”? The BBC studied this and found the 60 wealthiest people in the UK paid more than £3bn per year in tax between them. If they choose to “fuck off” how are you suggesting we replace that??

Lol. In nominal income, perhaps. When you take into account benefits, support and subsidies that lower earners have, it becomes much more equitable.
I remember why I had £80k stuck in my head, because I had a mum of two in my team on about that salary, and she ended up leaving because £80k simply didn't cover two full time nursery fees + commute costs.

People know, they also know Labour and some on mn are driven by Pat McFadden’s line - ‘Every meeting I have is “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”. They’re asking the wrong questions.’

That hyper focus on ever higher taxation is at the limit. Labour have run out of road.

If you don’t think it through on whatever tax, in addition to the 90 already in place, you’ll further erode spending.

I mean personal wealth, which is entirely different, imo.
No human being NEEDS that much, do they?

That's the 2019 general election you're thinking of, daisyfallout, when £80k was mooted as the point where an even higher rate of income tax might apply

The "wealth" tax is a different wheeze, but very much from the same playbook and destined to fail like the rest - which is where coming for the comparatively less rich enters the equation

When you take into account benefits, support and subsidies that lower earners have, it becomes much more equitable

Edited to add you're right, it does - except that to some these are all the "deserving poor" as opposed to parasites who should all f*ck off (and presumsbly take their billions in contributions with them)

Our government run medical system is extremely efficient compared to the US. In terms of outcomes it's about twice as efficient pound for pound.

I'm not saying this as some kind of lefty ideologue - I was a consultant for private healthcare. There are massive efficiency gains in having a single, free at the point of entry, state run healthcare system.

Not only is it cheaper, it's actually better. The patient outcomes in the NHS (e.g. surgery success rates) are better than in private healthcare and many of the private providers go to great pains to make sure this data is not easily available.

The main benefit of private healthcare in the UK is the ability to jump the massive waiting lists and to get treatment that would be deemed high cost and non-essential on the NHS (e.g. private physio).

Did anyone see the tech billionaire takeover on BBC, about the billionnaires trying to by pass democracy. Im not fussed by millionaires these days, 10 million does seem 'low' - but I can't really say I can understand how billionaires as individuals 'work hard' to earn the billions.

A 2% tax on the super rich would be a drop in the ocean, there are just too few of them. A penny on income tax would raise vastly more revenue. And the billionaires will have assets in other countries that are taxed locally and are inaccessible to UK taxes.

But by default it helps the country/government 🙄 hun.

I understand. My point was really about what the general public perceives as wealthy, and in response to the earlier comment that this could become a slippery slope.

If, at one point, a significant proportion of the electorate accepted that an income of £70-£80k was a reasonable threshold for paying adidtional tax, it is not difficult to see how the same logic could eventually be extended from income to assets.

Not necessarily true. Luck certainly comes into it, but working smart and taking risks is usually the reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/21/millionaires-billionaires-taxes-super-rich-mark-ruffalo-wef-davos

So? We don't need lots of things. We don't need to go abroad on holiday but we do.

This article explains how an open letter from the richest 400 millionaires and billionaires called upon the super rich to be taxed more as it is threat to democracy.

They can send a hefty cheque each year over a letter. Tax can be voluntarily paid. Why wait for policy?

True.

Sadly, it would likely be spent on the benefits for people that aren't willing to work.
Would make sense if it was going to the NHS or somewhere else where it's really needed.

Do they donate to their gov's treasury?

I’m not sure how I feel about the potential charge BUT only a very small % of those worth over £10m are on PAYE. They will have limited companies, pay themselves dividends which attract a lower tax and they pay no NI. It’s the employed middle and higher earners who pay the most as a percentage of income, so maybe the top slice should pay a bit more.