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 think we need to attract more of the super rich to the UK. I'd do the opposite and offer tax incentives for people to come. Maybe turn Manchester into the Monaco of the North.

Average earners pay low taxes in the UK, by international standards. High earners pay some of the highest rates in the world. The UK has one of the world’s most progressive tax systems.

I would imagine very few, if any, businesses exit the US and there are plenty of other reasons to start up a business in the US.

Slapping an exit tax on top of an otherwise business unfriendly regime is not going to be the solution. Maybe the Treasury is taking its advice from Mumsnet.

Do you not want the UK to be a hub for business, investment and highly paid work?

The present system of taxation is designed to extract money from people who receive salaries, and it does that very effectively. What it isn’t designed to do is tax people who are making far more money each year simply by relaying on their accumulated wealth. By escaping so much of the tax burden, that wealth compounds far faster, and the gap between the rush and the poor is getting wider at an ever increasing rate.

That is not remotely fair. The idea of a 2% wealth tax for people with over 10 million is that it would make them pay something equivalent to the same proportion of tax that the rest of us are paying.

That seems like the very definition of fair to me, why should only salaries be targeted?

And if nobody chose the low paid jobs? No one serving in shops or restaurants, or picking your impulse buy off Amazons shelves, or caring for your children in nursery enabling you to work? Subsidised by tax payers topping up wages to cover their living costs.

But absolutely we can’t ask someone with infinitely more money than they could ever spend to pay an actual living wage, cos god forbid their wealth decreased at all, cos that’s not fair.

But the value of listed companies is based on their share price which is usually calculated as 10 to 15 times projected profits. So a company worth 11 million, in theory, would be pulling in about 1,100,000 in profit a year. If you owned the whole company) you would be taxed 2% of a million so would be paying out 20,000. Which would hardly make a dent in the 1,100,000 (it works out as a tiny increase in capital gains tax) and an even tinier dent in the 11,000,000 total.

The only exception to this is those incomprehensible stock listings where companies are worth billions even they make tiny or no profit each year based on speculative "future" profits (cough Tesla.acough AI cough). If a wealth tax discourages fantastical valuations that's probably a good thing but unfortunately it isn'tikely to be significant enough to have an impact

The super rich are not paying the most tax, don’t fall for that lie. Not when you look at the % compared to their income.

The majority of people in this country do not use welfare as a lifestyle choice what nonsense

It makes sense to move a bit from income based taxes to wealth/assets based taxes.

People who own the most benefit the most from the working state (infrastructure, legal protection on their ownership, access to work force).

I miss Sunak a lot

I think what is quite evident on this thread and MN generally is that noone agrees what 'rich' or 'super rich ' means other than 'more than me' . I'm a sp working full time as a teacher. According to some my 48k salary makes me rich and fair game to pay more, get no help other than CB and I should have no complaints. Even not living in the SE, I have debt, go month to month in my overdraft, drive a 14 yo car and take my teens on UK caravan holidays. Its all relative. Unless you fundamentally disagree with the basic principles of capitalism, there will be extremes at either end and life is not fair. Its childish to expect anything else. 10m sounds huge but as many have pointed out, for a farmer its all asset based and day to day they are far from wealthy.

There are people OP who cannot spend the sheer amount of money they have in their lifetime. Their children cannot. And their children will not go without.
They are so rich that it is almost impossible to imagine it. The interest they earn daily on their assets is something they cannot keep up with. I think people do not always realise just how very very rich some people are. Billionaires. We now in the world have the first trillionaire. Imagine having a billion though. I cannot.

If such people, who do exist, gave two million to society they would not notice it. They really really would not. They are so rich. But they would be doing some good with their money. They would be recognising they live in a thing called a society. And doing their bit ( because they can) to improve it.

While writing this I am mindful of those who have fought for our country who have lost limbs, who have to learn how to walk again, but who live on a pittance. I am mindful of those who when I was waiting for an eye appointment in hospital I looked around ( Rachel had just removed the Winter fuel allowance) at some very old, and some poor looking people. It was Winter and freezing.

They could do some good OP. I absolutely would endorse this policy.
It is an old fashioned idea of those who have doing their bit and looking after those who have so much less.

They really would not notice it. Nor would their children. They are too rich for that.

Life isn’t fair poor people are told that all the time

parachutegirl
Why are you assuming everyone who’s rich has worked very hard to get it? Tbf most of the people I know who are wealthy have managed to do it through getting a leg up from previous generations. Yes they have decent jobs, but they’ve had handouts/inheritances that have got them on the housing ladder/enabled them to climb it.
I know two people who’ve just gone and worked in the already successful family firm straight from school and ended up taking over the business.

But then you’re saying they worked- I used to work with two girls who were children of the owners, there were regularly jokes about how they got in but after a day off they’d come in and say we were talking last night and saying why don’t we try adding these things to this stand and trying to promote x, y and z. None of us went home thinking or talking about ways to make the business better. They’d also spoken to their parents about things that worked before and hadn’t.

dh’s friend manages a corner shop for his family- he’s in every morning at 6, home at 11 at night. He’s only started taking days off since he met someone and either way you’ll mostly see them in the shop.

And if their family made money why shouldn’t they help them- if I had money I’d help my kids!!

hellesbells

• life isn’t fair poor people are told that all the time

by who? By other poor people? I’m mw and all the people who say it has to be done, well that’s life are other people on low incomes as we bitch about being in on a Sunday at 8am or 9pm!!

It’s not going to come from somewhere, external economic groups are telling us taxes are hindering growth already. Look at the OECD and IMF.

No, not really!

Need to consider the cost involved in a wealth tax. Many new civil servants will be needed to assess how wealthy people are, which involves investigating all shares, land, etc etc which they will try to avoid and hide, plus new systems required to charge and enforce it, which will all cost millions. How to separate out property wealth for individuals in mansions from farmers fields and machinery etc sounds simple but in practice will need a lot of effort.
Also consider tax is 2% per year not just a one off tax, so you are constantly paying tax on the same wealth.

We absolutely don’t spend much less per capita. In Germany and France, the two higher spenders, health insurance is compulsory or you personally fund the difference. The exception is for critical care. So on top of the equivalent of NI of up to 23% in France you pay a Mutuelle of at least 40€ per month to cover the cost of your stay, or for glasses, dentistry etc.
Mental health is not a big thing in France - if you or your children have ADHD for example, only a psychiatrist can prescribe. Every appointment with a GP is €30 which you claim back - but it’s cash or card at the appointment.

What a stupid comment.
No one wants everyone dependent on welfare. However there is an inevitability about a high welfare bill when we have an aging and unhealthy population and the number of children with disabilities is increasing.
You have no figures for how many people fall into your category of 'benefits as a lifestyle' at all, do you, and how much of our welfare bill goes on people too old too work, too ill to work, caring for disabled people, saddled with unaffordable private rent bills and on wages too low to afford to live without top up?
Your cousin's best friends boyfriend who you think is on PIP when there isn't anything wrong with him isn't data on which to assess how much welfare spend is avoidable and how much isn't.
For goodness sake, at least have a look at our population and some actual statistics that demonstrate how many people we have who have to be supported before you spout your emotionally driven soundbites.

Perhaps too, we can focus on those who do not pay the taxes they should.
Remove loopholes unavailable to the majority of people.
Ensure defaulters assets are acquired.
Why should people who are on PAYE pay for those who do not. The list of defaulters published by HMRC is shocking. The amounts eyewatering. For businesses and individuals who think paying tax is for ‘little people’, and they for some reason are exempt.
No. Reel it all in. Every single penny.

So how should we pay our bills?

I don't know if this is fair or unfair, but I am concerned we shall scare away the rich people. A lot of them left, a lot of them are leaving. Italy announced that if extra HNWIs move to Italy, they will only have to pay 100K pa, one off, on all of their assets and earnings.

Oh yes! that official document you have produced 👏