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

When did they do this in France ? Are you talking about the Revolution ? Because last I looked France seems to be doing ok.

Here you go, RedTagAlan: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/10/31/french-lawmakers-vote-against-wealth-tax-on-super-rich_6746973_7.html?srsltid=AfmBOop4u8NZmTAZDFEx4EB1J_8S735Z1ssgc9IeIsRrELF8GU9cwEPL

Link wont open for me. But the title says lawmakers voted against it. So it never happened ?

Really - HK seems like an awful place to live right now with the Chinese govt cracking down on freedoms of speech etc.

likewise, I can’t imagine living in the UAE with their human rights (or lack of), lack of freedom of speech etc. And the lack of taxes comes at the expense of the working class who are frankly exploited.

But feel free to go and live there if you prefer 🤷🏼‍♀️

Sorry about the link, RedTagAlan, but yes you're right that they voted it down

Trouble is this was after years of the proposal being mooted then kicked around, and just the discussions will have been enough for some to protect their wealth - much as they did here when it became clear Labour were going to win last time

You’d be well treated at the expense of the working class. As long as you’re good with that and don’t care about human rights, freedom of speech etc

There is also a war on in the gulf states. So the money counting might be interrupted by air raid sirens.

But apart from the human rights abuse, misogyny, war, and living in a desert, it sounds lovely

It's still reasonably safe to live there for tax reasons. Many people, including some of our politicians, do. However, they usually keep some assets (eg property) in the UK as a safe backup. There is no reasons those assets can't be taxed. In fact, the very fact people are living outside the UK and therefore not paying income tax etc but still benefitting from the UKs stability, land prices etc is more reason to impose a modest wealth tax not less. 2% of UK assets for peace of mind is a small price surely.

Plus, personally at the same time I imposed the wealth tax I would also make rules around only UK tax payers or those residing within the UK being allowed to run as MPs, donate to political parties or control news channels. Either you are in or your out IMO.

My point wasn't that there was no-where with lower taxes to live. It was that the things that make places like the UK good places for rich people to live, or to build huge amounts of assets in the first place, didn't fall out of the sky. They happen because of government taxes. The Gulf states have their own alternative to income tax (oil in most of them but not Dubai) but they know thats time limited so they are trying to coax foreigners in with tax deals. Effectively, and ironically, it's a very socialist command economy for people that hate socialism. The intention is to get money from said foreigners in other ways - the real estate market for instance. But time will tell if the whole place falls apart or not. You'd be a fool to invest all of a vast fortune there, even if it's an OK place to reside.

The livable places with 0 tax usually have authoritarian governments/rules. Fine if that's your thing. But there is no-where that the people who claim to be anti-tax and pro-small government want to live that fits their described ideal... Why do you think that is?

So you do an exit tax. And if they go then they will hopefully sell their assets because that’s the issue. All the resources are getting concentrated within the top few percentage.

Why are there so many, do some an EHCP?

poor you

I agree.

I wish there was a culture of philanthropy in the UK in the same way that there is in the US. Ok, there are some who donate to good causes- but not anywhere near the $s donated in the US for charitable and cultural causes.

I can’t help but think that if the wealthy were more generous in giving away some of their extensive wealth, which frankly is often surplus to some very extravagant lifestyles, then they wouldn’t be targeted through the tax system

In the US a lot of the philanthropy from the super rich is to do with tax. Not all of them, there's also a philosophy inherited from Carnegie etc to do with giving your fortune away. But a lot of the charitable foundations that have huge amounts going in and not a lot going out are tax related. Or the "donations" to art museums which normally means giving museums valuable art pieces on a long term loan. This allows them to offset the cost of the art piece against their taxable income that year, while still owning the piece.

It seems to be the ex-wives of the super rich (Jeff Bezos ex or Melinda Gates) who are the best at giving money away so maybe we need more divorces. Or more JK Rowling's (I know she's controversial because of the trans debate but she is one of the best at giving away money).

I agree about the US v UK philanthropy models, but the first is very much a cultural thing, born of a young nation where originally people had to help those around them to ensure their very survival - an attitude which can still be seen with those who ask what they can do for themselves as opposed to expecting "someone else" to do it all

Not sure about the UK wealthy escaping targeting if only they were "more generous" though. Not everyone likes to shout about what they give or to who, and anyway a lot of this seems more about perceived images than reality

Edited to add you're not wrong about tax advantages around philanthropy in the US, @Persephonia1966, but tax regimes come and go and I was thinkingg more of deep seated cultural issues and expectations

I also think charitable giving can backfire

Eg George Soros gives a lot to causes in his native Hungary and in America. But this has turned him into a bit of a bogey man on the right side of politics

Rich people giving money to environmental charities has caused conspiracy theories

More right wing millionaires/billionaires giving money to pro-life causes, religious groups would irk me.

Charitable giving is great, and I think people should! And the people that give lots deserve credit. But it gets messy when the causes are political or have political angles, because then you have incredibly wealthy people potentially having more power to influence society than normal people. It gets backs up. And for essential needs, I think it's better for those to be provide by the government than as charity. Even if the person ultimately paying is the same person. It's a bit lady bountiful scattering coins otherwise.

Is it not tax deductible in the US ? Give to charity the max amount allowed instead of paying it as tax ?

So you end up with a system where society depends on Charity instead of Government funding. And there is the 501(c) thing in the US. So the money goes to charities that are tax exempt.

And I recall that causes issues. For example, religious hospitals refusing to do certain things, such as abortion.

Relying on the goodwill of the wealthy to provide the essentials for the ordinary people is very risky. Impossible to plan as there's no way of knowing when the wealthy might change their minds. It also means that some causes will recieve more than others with the wealthy getting to decide where money goes.
Which is great if you're a kitten or a child needing an operation. Not so much if you're a less popular cause.
Philanthropy is a wonderful thing and I respect the wealthy who choose to give something back. But I think this should be reserved for the nice to have things, not to fill gaps in essential services the state needs to provide. We need tax for that.

75% of millionaires are self made.

Wealth taxes were tried and scaled back more recently than the revolution.

and how many used illegal methods to achieve that wealth, eg insider trading etc

I don't know, you tell me. Or are you just making massive assumptions?

The modern wealth tax being proposed would not try to emulate the failed European model. It would be applied to far fewer, much richer households e.g. £100m+.

This would make it much easier to implement.

Do you have any links as evidence to your claim. Eg when, what were they, when scaled back, why.... and so on ?

Your post is suggestive that there was such a tax, but it failed in some way ?