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

65% of the adult population pays income tax. That looks like about two thirds to me. The other third of course still pay VAT.

Won’t someone think of the billionaires?

You mean the whole 157 billionaires residing in the U.K. currently? All 157 of them will single handedly solve all society’s ills tomorrow….

If only someone would think of not stuffing up with bad tax policies. See the OECD for current criticism.

Yes, it is achieved by paying huge, huge sums to lawyers and accountants. Is the government really willing to spend that? For every individual in the country suspected of possessing over 10 million in some form or other - from farmland to businesses to jewellery etc? The expense will dwarf any tax raised and the invasiveness would send any remaining multimillionaires abroad.

And?

According to govt stats:

30-40% of UC claimants ARE in work.
Pensioners account for just over 50% of all benefits claimants.
About a quarter of benefits claimants are unemployed, of which around a quarter are deemed to be actively looking for work (1.5-2million)
About a quarter of working age claimants have some level of disability

That doesn’t sound like it leaves a huge number of people sitting around on their asses doing nothing?

Those lawyers and accountants already work in HMRC. There’s a relatively small number of people with assets over £10m. They could start with the Times Rich List.

Actually it's 55 - 65% so nearly half the population potentially don't pay income tax. Plus when 24 - 25% of all those working (ie nearly half of them) only work part time it's no wonder the country is fucked.

Where did your figures come from? Of course you must realise that a lot of those part timers are people deliberately keeping their income under £100k so they still qualify for free childcare. Equally some of those part timers will be earning less than the personal allowance so they come from the 35% category.

Do you know the actual amounts of any benefits? I bet I know the answer to that. 🙄

Maybe take your head out of the Daily Mail and stop tarring all benefit recipients (most of whom do 'genuinely need it' with the 'skiver' brush?

No one ever said tax was supposed to be FAIR , so your whole post is based on a complete misunderstanding.

Go back and watch Robin Hood Prince of Thieves if you want an easy intro to the history of the redistribution of wealth!

Is it “fair” that some people are born with a gift for football/ business which they have been lucky enough to be able to capitalise upon?

Is it “fair” that some people have a great education, excellent parenting and plenty of family money to set them up for life?

Is it “fair” that someone who could afford a small property in London for £100k in the early 90s now finds themselves minted because of being able to trade up the property chain?

Fair has got nothing to do with it.

Well that’s not my experience.

It’s data and government statistics which kind of trumps one person’s experience.

Why is Andy Burnham wearing a blue tie and his wife a light blue dress? I thought blue is a Tory colour?

Most white people look dreadful in red? It's not a colour I'd ever contemplate putting on myself.

Huh?
Red is a very flattering colour. You just need to get the right shade. Orangey red looks bad on pale cool toned people for example but white absolutely doesn't "look bad" on white people anymore than it looks bad on black people.

That said, I don't think it's a particularly foreboding sign that they choose to wear blue. They might prefer it and I know fashion/style matters in politics but I doubt it's a secret dog whistle that he's really a Tory plant.

I can only speak for myself & my husband, but we are fairly high earners (not in the £10 million bracket by a LONG stretch), we are in the 40% tax bracket. we have got here by being bloody hard workers, building a business from scratch, taking a massive hit several years ago when many businesses went under. We managed to pay the staff we had, but we didn’t take full pay. I was literally sat working out which household bill could be paid and which would have to wait.

We had 3 very young children at the time, I couldn’t afford new clothes for them as they grew, my daughter was wearing her older brothers old clothes and I looked at jumble sales. We couldn’t afford to take them for haircuts. But the staff were paid.

We were 6 months in arrears with the mortgage. Had debt collectors at the door. But we kept open as long as we could because we knew those people had families and bills too.

Thankfully, we are now in a much better position and have managed to ride out the bad times. We have rebuilt, paid off the company debt that we were left with and have expanded.

So please tell me, when someone goes to work, 9 to 5, clocks off completely after their shift and goes home, is that the same as the business owners who took ALL the risks, never is off duty & could potentially lose everything? Yes they will earn more, but by god they’ve bloody well earned it. They pay huge tax bills, and are being threatened with even more tax? Should it carry on then the business owners will simply close up here and head elsewhere. Thus causing hundreds, even thousands, of job losses.

Good luck collecting taxes then.

As a side note, everybody has a choice. We were not from wealthy backgrounds, or even stable homes. However, we worked, hard. We did not expect hand outs. We built what we have from the ground upwards. Why can’t others help themselves to do the same?

Untrue. I have a family member who is a very high earner and they work incredibly long hours. They pay a huge amount of tax and essentially, work two a days for free as a result.

All the more reason to work hard at school so you can have a skilled profession

Horses for courses I am afraid.

It was reported a few years ago, so £10bn now. At 6% = £600m every ten years. If he lives for 40 years, that is £2.4bn. 50 years, £3bn. Crucially the Treasury gets its money earlier and if he spreads it every year rather than paying it in advance they get interest at 7.75% pa.

The above is inheritance tax. Every year he pays income tax too.

The largest payments the Grosvenor Estate make are not repairs, champagne for the Duke, or new swimming pools and shotguns. It is tax. It the portfolio yields 3%, about two thirds goes in tax.

Never will you see these Dukes on the Deliberate Tax Defaulters list published by HMRC. You will see plenty of landlords though who not only deliberately conceal tax, but continue to hide things from HMRC when under investigation. These are the people you should be challenging.

Some people just aren’t that bright. 🤷‍♀️

I agree that a lot of high earners work hard and have worked hard to get where they are. I don't have a problem with progressive income tax but there is a limit and the conversation shouldn't be about punishing people for working in well paying jobs.

But, in this case it's a bit of a distraction because although you pay 40% income tax as you say yourself you don't have over ten million. I get that's because you were responding to someone else who was arguing about high earners versus low earners though. But...

Even someone working hard at a 200,000 per annum job would need to work for 85 years to save up 10,000,000 from their post tax income alone. (Obviously that's if they didn't spend any money whatsoever on food etc but also if they didn't invest the money at all and just saved).

There is a huge difference between what most people consider a good wage or rich (200,000 definitely fits that), and the sort of wealth being talked about regarding wealth taxes. The middle class (and that can span any salary between 50,000 and 200,000 if you want) are shrinking and declining in wealth whilst the very low earners stay about the same and the share of wealth by the very wealthy (global and in the UK) increases. It's not sustainable but every conversation comes down to "I work hard and I pay the top rate of income tax". Great but you probably aren't super rich.

Where do you think public spending comes from? A magic money tree?
No one is held “hostage”. But the money for benefits and public services has to come from earners, the higher the better.

The sort of wealth you get is if you set up business make good investments etc