Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Polasnski’s revenue-neutral wealth tax?

37 replies

AshLeaf · 19/10/2025 19:49

Polanski suggested this morning that a wealth tax is the right thing to do, even if it raises no revenue, and encourages some very wealthy people to move abroad. He justifies this because it would make society less unequal, which is, he suggests, a positive end in itself.

I wondered what other people thought about this? I see little to be gained by instituting a tax with no fiscal benefit, and no community benefit in reducing spend in our economy be removing some of the biggest spenders (if they move abroad). What do you think?

OP posts:
RolandH · 21/10/2025 14:31

TonTonMacoute · 20/10/2025 10:28

Tax is only one part of how an economy pays for itself. Government borrowing is a major feature as is foreign investment.

A tax regime that is too airy fairy will destroy all confidence in the economy and severely affect both these other factors.

Problem noted - but I don't see how a wealth tax is particularly airy fairy. If anything, I would characterise it as harsh but fair. This is independent of its viability - but it is funny how proposals from the left are somehow seen under a particular light.

BIossomtoes · 21/10/2025 14:57

RolandH · 21/10/2025 14:29

I doubt this guy actually would fall into the wealth tax category - just look at what he is saying about his income.

This is important people more people think a wealth tax would effect them than is actually the case - just like inheritence tax.

Show quote history

There will be people considerably wealthier than them who employ the same tactics.

whoopdeedoo · 21/10/2025 15:01

RolandH · 21/10/2025 14:29

I doubt this guy actually would fall into the wealth tax category - just look at what he is saying about his income.

This is important people more people think a wealth tax would effect them than is actually the case - just like inheritence tax.

Show quote history

Why assume this is a ‘guy’? I take it you are male, which explains your comments on women’s rights.

Aside from this, how do you know that the ‘guy’ wouldn’t fall into ‘wealthy’ category? They very easily could meet your random £2m threshold on retirement with a mortgage paid off and a great pension fund. Your throwaway ‘£2m or £5m’ illustrates one clear issue with a wealth tax - who decides what level of assets is appropriate? What if it remains the same over time and fiscal drag occurs, as it has with PAYE? How do you calculate it without admin costs being prohibitive? A house may be worth £2m on paper but how do you prove this without selling it and what about the mortgage outstanding or interest paid since it was bought?

Whilst I agree that there is a wealth gap that needs to be closed, all the evidence suggests that wealth taxes do not work. There is no point in levelling down, which is what has been shown to happen time and again where these taxes have been applied. The answer, as another pp said seems to be a global approach but achieving that would be nigh on impossible.

TonTonMacoute · 21/10/2025 15:23

RolandH · 21/10/2025 14:31

Problem noted - but I don't see how a wealth tax is particularly airy fairy. If anything, I would characterise it as harsh but fair. This is independent of its viability - but it is funny how proposals from the left are somehow seen under a particular light.

Show quote history

Suggesting the introduction of a tax for idealogical reasons, even if it yields no revenue!? Really? There are extra costs which will be incurred, staff will have to trained the tax code updated etc etc.

It doesn't get more fucking airy fairy than that frankly!

BadgernTheGarden · 21/10/2025 15:28

AshLeaf · 19/10/2025 19:49

Polanski suggested this morning that a wealth tax is the right thing to do, even if it raises no revenue, and encourages some very wealthy people to move abroad. He justifies this because it would make society less unequal, which is, he suggests, a positive end in itself.

I wondered what other people thought about this? I see little to be gained by instituting a tax with no fiscal benefit, and no community benefit in reducing spend in our economy be removing some of the biggest spenders (if they move abroad). What do you think?

If it's meant to make society more equal but raises no revenue to benefit the poorer people, I assume it has to be a swingeing tax to punish the wealthy and reduce them to relative poverty too. Well the very wealthy would leave so it would be the upper end of the working population that would suffer.

anniegun · 21/10/2025 15:29

His main point is that tax is heavily weighted to wages not wealth. So someone working as a nurse pays less tax than someone receiving the same amount in interest from a trust fund. Also the wealthiest do not get richer by increasing their wages but by keep their wealth locked up in assets that increase in value (and are lightly taxed if at all). Rishi Sunak was a good example when he declared he paid a 22% tax on income of £2.2m and that excluded any gains in value that he did not realise

BadgernTheGarden · 21/10/2025 15:55

anniegun · 21/10/2025 15:29

His main point is that tax is heavily weighted to wages not wealth. So someone working as a nurse pays less tax than someone receiving the same amount in interest from a trust fund. Also the wealthiest do not get richer by increasing their wages but by keep their wealth locked up in assets that increase in value (and are lightly taxed if at all). Rishi Sunak was a good example when he declared he paid a 22% tax on income of £2.2m and that excluded any gains in value that he did not realise

Well a gain isn't a gain unless you realise it, like the stock exchange you may have a gain on paper today, which may be a loss tomorrow, the same with property and other assets it's not a given that they go up in value they may go down. Trust funds are taxed (I forget exactly but x% every y years) apart from the income from the trust fund being taxed at the usual rate, it's not that straightforward putting money into a trust fund to save tax it can work or not.

EasternStandard · 21/10/2025 18:15

RolandH · 21/10/2025 14:31

Problem noted - but I don't see how a wealth tax is particularly airy fairy. If anything, I would characterise it as harsh but fair. This is independent of its viability - but it is funny how proposals from the left are somehow seen under a particular light.

Show quote history

It’s not really but it has to be viable.

EasternStandard · 21/10/2025 18:29

Plus he says it would raise no revenue. It could decrease revenue, is it still worth it? If so which services should be cut

NorthXNorthWest · 21/10/2025 21:05

Wealth taxes worked well with the French didn't they?

If we want to make society more equal and positive, why is raising taxes on anyone who has more than you the 'wealthy' the only way or even main way to do this?

Will it protect women from men and allow them to feel safe?
Will it ensure that there little to no waste of tax payers money?
Will it force absentee fathers (or mothers) to pay for their children?
Will it force the work shy away from benefits?
Will it force parents to invest quality time and effort in their non SEN children so they don't arrive at nursery or school with poor social or underdeveloped language / behaviour skills for their age and ability?
Will it force developers to build reasonable sized homes AND the infrastructure to support those homes - schools, doctors, dentists - on more accessible brown field sites rather that destroying the greenbelt?
Will if force people to take responsibility for their health so as to be less of a drain on the NHS?

Labraradabrador · 21/10/2025 21:50

RolandH · 21/10/2025 14:21

Exactly. It's not about whether we tax the wealthy, it's how we do it, because the alternative is they just get wealthier and wealthier. That will lead to mass immiseration or war (as it plausibly in the 20th century), possibly both.

My understanding is the only practical way to do it is to level a tax on all assets, hence illiminating loopholes. I've heard arguments that the problem would be the HMRC would spend a fortune assessing exactly how rich people are (as assets aren't always valued when they are not on the market - think about housing. We know what a house might be worth, but not what it will fetch until it is sold), but given the wealth at the top, I saw we just draw a line, and stipulate it's for the people with the assets to determine this. Surely they can afford it! And it is about getting the people at the top, anyway. There are always going to be ambiguities whereever you drawn a tax threshhold.

The only practical way to do it and ensure it actually brings in alot of money is to cooperate with other countries to stop these people taking their money abroad. Biden made VERY tentative steps in this direction. I'm quite happy to go against national sovereignty in in certain ways to achieve this. The alternative, to my mind, is for our societies to ultimately decline, and be overtaken by societies like China, who simply tell their rich what to do.

Show quote history

Assets sounds very reasonable until you consider the business owner or farmer who on paper has a fortune in assets, but very little cash on hand to pay hmrc. I live in a rural area with many farming families, who on paper are probably millionaires, but all of that is land and machinery- an annual wealth tax would mean them selling off their farm bit by bit until nothing was left

NorthXNorthWest · 22/10/2025 07:42

BadgernTheGarden · 21/10/2025 15:55

Well a gain isn't a gain unless you realise it, like the stock exchange you may have a gain on paper today, which may be a loss tomorrow, the same with property and other assets it's not a given that they go up in value they may go down. Trust funds are taxed (I forget exactly but x% every y years) apart from the income from the trust fund being taxed at the usual rate, it's not that straightforward putting money into a trust fund to save tax it can work or not.

Show quote history

Agree. Same applies to ordinary people.

What is the issue with someone living in a house that has risen in value to £3m, if that is their only home? People like my IL's sold their home (nowhere near £250k) to pay LA care home fees. That money subsidised/ paid for the fees of people who had no money for their elderly care.

As long as there has been no deprivation of assets your only home it is likely be sold to pay care home fees or have inheritance tax applied when it passes to your children /other beneficiaries after you die, if the value is high enough.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page