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

It’s a very, very difficult problem.

The top 1% or the top 0.1% of earners are paying 27ish% or 10ish % of the income tax the govt collects. They might be considered to be keeping us afloat. Some of them are grossly overpaid fat cats but others are workers grinding themselves 7 days a week into ill health. Some of them are vitally important surgeons and lawyers who could just fly away to another country and leave us far worse off. Some of them have giant mortgages and private school fees and whatever else that they are paying.

More the problem is the people who have tens of millions or more of assets and can essentially sit on their arses forever and live off the interest - and what generally happens is that they manage to pass down their wealth in family trusts and don’t pay tax. Whereas someone in a cookie cutter and a bit of savings can end up clobbered for IHT.

I don’t know what the answer is. It would be easy for me to sit here and say well I don’t have £10m so just tax the fuck out of those who do. But then would you (if part of a couple) need to have £20m to end up paying? And what would the unintended impacts be? People giving wealth to children early to avoid the tax? People going abroad? I mean if I was sitting on 10milly, I can’t imagine being bothered about giving my adult dc a mill or two each. Then no tax bill.

I know that people with massively compounding wealth who own shit loads of assets are problematic. I juts don’t know how you get them to pay a proportionate amount of tax.

There is such a fine line between people paying a fair amount of tax and incentivising them to emigrate or stop working. I saw some interview somewhere with a bloke who earned millions. He said well if tax is going to be large, I will stop working after the first two months of every years and so for the remaining ten months, no further money is made (and the employees can get stuffed).

Yes,
And the reason it's possible to do that in the UK is because we are reasonably stable compared to other parts of the world and governed by the rule of law. So you can invest in land or a business without worrying that the Mafia or a local war lord are going to come and take it all or demand payment in bribes. Likewise a government officials son won't decide they like your house and manufacture criminal charges against you so you go to jail and they take your house.

More prosaically the housing market is (IMO overheated but) reasonably stable. The government has proven it's not going to let housing prices crash to nothing or allow all the major lenders to fail. So it's safe to invest in and because of that investments in housing are a safe bet. Insurance companies will cover your business and effectively the government underwrites the insurance companies.

Inflation and the economy aren't great but (despite what the doommongers say) it's not at Argentinian levels where your money just melts away. Workers still come to work because they know they will get paid etc. Armed revolutionaries aren't seizing the means of production and hanging the wealthy from lampposts (and no, a 2% tax is not that)

Basically, it's only possible for people to invest wisely because the government spends money making sure society functions. Suretheres waste. But anyone who has made more than 10 million in this country from wise (or extremely lucky) investing has benefitted more from government spending that someone who has lived their whole life on benefits. They likely have also worked hard. But they can afford to pay a tiny bit back to keep the system ticking over. Lots of multi-millionaires are fine with this. But there's some who have a "grab what you can and get out as the system collapses behind you" approach. And that's not OK. And that's why tax needs to be mandatory not voluntary.

I saw some interview somewhere with a bloke who earned millions. He said well if tax is going to be large, I will stop working after the first two months of every years and so for the remaining ten months, no further money is made (and the employees can get stuffed).

If you actually tried to do that as a business owner though you would lose your business quite fast. Competitors would take your share, employees would leave and find new jobs etc. To make money in business you usually need to keep moving..it's grow or die, standing still is not an option. Besides which a 2% tax is not large..I assume he was talking about capital gains taxes?

Someone investing in the economy is contributing vastly more to someone just living life on benefits

The English fashion designer, Ozwald Boateng, would disagree with you he said, "Anyone can wear any colour. The question is about finding the right shade." Which IMO is true.

I agree

The super-rich are holding far more than their share of the earth's (finite) resources. They don't work harder, they don't work better, they are just in a position to take more wealth than they need. CEOs of large companies earn many times what their employees earn who actually keep the businesses afloat.

It can never be right that some people can have private jets, yachts, several houses, healthcare on tap, whjile others struggle to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children. Taxes are the only way to redress this balance.

The super-rich always threaten to leave, but somehow, they rarely do.

Its effectively a tax rate of almost 75% for the wealthy - £10 million wealth generates income of around £800k. Since higher rate tax is already 47% and adding another £200k tax means almost 75% tax. They'll just leave.

The need to stop punishing people who work and rewarding people who don't for a start

Surely that poster is referencing the obvious imbalance in power that has arisen with audah wealth inequality and the very worrying threat to democracy? There are other choices that can be made that delivers healthier distribution of wealth and consequently power. On this thread, I gave the example of how Denmark stopped the rise of the Mega Landlord. The rental market is small private Landlords and non profit housing associations. The mega landlords that exist here are largely absent in Denmark due to the regulatory framework. Denmark is a successful country and is not a communist country.

That is very good. The most important words "Sure there's waste."

Wealthy generally do not mind paying extra taxes so long as (a) the black economy is tackled and (b) central and local government cut out poor decisions and corruption. A government has a duty to resolve issues like this which is equal to its duty to calculate revenue and spending needs.

And the reap the significant benefits from that. The reason the UK is somewhere attractive to set up a business is because of proper governance, the legal system and relative stability from being a functioning democracy. They have the foundations already in place, I'm afraid with that comes responsibilities to pay a fair share of tax, it is quid pro quo!

They reap not 'the'.

I totally agree . There's nicely off and then there's rich. This link helps demonstrate
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYmrEQFNPxI/

hope this is right thread... should be casino chips on a table!

CEOs are the ones driving the strategy and making the large decisions for the company. Every firm is different and not all CEOs are efficient, but there's a reason the board boots them out if targets aren't met.

People should be allowed to buy whatever they want. I can have multiple meals out whilst (unfortunately) there are people who go hungry.

Which the rich already pay for?

Fully agree with you! It’s just like stealing someone’s money! They are better at making money than me , they shouldn’t be punished! It’s the circle of no jobs available, more people on welfare and benefits that’s the issue. That’s what needs sorting. Not those paying for private health, schools and being taxed at an already high level. They are the people we need to retain in this country and not out off living here.

How does someone hoard a business they set up and created?

Why do you think the super rich should pay proportionally less tax than ordinary people?

Should that principle apply to me too? I have a high salary, should I also get to pay less tax than people earning much less than me?

Maybe the low earners should be on the 45% and I can just pay 20% - that seems to fit with this idea that the more you have the less you should pay!

But the problem that needs addressing is the sizeable wealth inequality as this is a threat to democracy. The interplay between wealth inequality and economic stability means that this is very much something the people you are worried for rely upon for their profits and wealth.

They aren’t paying proportionally less. Higher earners pay more tax on their income than someone on 20% tax. We pay 45% over 125k.

Re read your statement!

It’s not about higher earners. The proposal is about wealthy people whose net worth is more than 10million. Sunak proportionally pays less tax than a nurse. Frankly that’s absurd.

@Pigwig10good points. Everyone expects money to be handed to them and they expect the same standard of living as people who are working 24/7.
I keep seeing posts about ‘why shouldn’t people on benefits go on holiday?’ Well a lot of families who work hard and can’t claim anything can’t afford a holiday!!

Why is it a problem? What's the democracy issue? If me and a friend vote to steal with our richer neighbour is that okay?

So let’s say Sunak has 10 million say in his bank account , that’s has already been taxed in some form to get there. Are they suggesting he has to pay 200,000 a year on it?! That’s mental.