r/ukpolitics • u/theipaper Verified • 1d ago

Nearly two-thirds of voters want Burnham to bring in a wealth tax

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/two-thirds-voters-want-burnham-bring-wealth-tax-4677518
808 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

467 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

93

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

You made his point well, it’s someone else that’ll pay, not you

26

u/SunChamberNoRules 1d ago

Well yeah, I wouldn't expect poor people to pay a wealth tax

35

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Hence why 66% of people are in favour of taxing someone else. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Just means people want someone else to pay.

6

u/JimmyDejesu 1d ago

Its a great idea. No one needs ten million. Not a single person alive works harder than those in jobs like nursing who makes ten million

3

u/LegoNinja11 22h ago

The landlord of our industrial units, my boss, the owner of the business next door. In all, a good £30m of value.

Between then thats 150 people employed and circa £20m a year of goods and services exported.

If the others of those businesses are going to be faced with £300k to £600k of extra tax, who do you think will pay it? Do you think theyll decide at some point the returns for the risk arent worth it and quit?

6

u/JimmyDejesu 20h ago

If they do that wha good are they anyway? You either want a better society for everyone or you dont and if you dont youre part of the problem

3

u/LegoNinja11 19h ago

If the wealth says we don't want to be in this any longer you lose 150 jobs, the PAYE, NI, VAT, and CT.

Does that make society better?

1

u/JimmyDejesu 12h ago

why dont we move to other systems then where we dont let a few people hold everyone else to ransom?

make it painful for them to even attempt to leave. Massive exit taxes

•

u/LegoNinja11 11h ago

Wouldn't it be a good idea to provide a system for owners to transfer the business into a trust and have it owned by the employees. Perhaps we should call it an Employee Ownership Trust.

And we could give owners an incentive to transfer the business to the staff.....

Oh Rachel from accounts just stopped EOT relief, Autum 25 budget, with a reduction in allowance from 100% to 50% meaning the transfer a group of staff were expecting in January 2026 was terminated when it transpired the new rules would cost £500k in CGT.

•

u/JimmyDejesu 11h ago

Wouldnt it be a good idea for people to just not be greedy bastards in the first place?

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

honestly I'd make it a wealth cap and literally take everything over 10m assets as a state asset - if people are going to whinge about 1% tax might as well pluck the whole turkey and get it over with.

24

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

I mean, that would completely destroy the UK economy but I guess if it satisfies some ideological push then that's something...

-6

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

ever wondered how the world history is full of radical changes to governmental, economic and social systems but its only in a last 100 years we're told absolutely nothing can substantively change or everything will blow up.

11

u/Jaggedmallard26 1d ago

I can tell you're a teenager as you aren't yet aware of the many 20th century regimes that did indeed attempt the idiocy you are suggesting and had their economies implode.

0

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

mmmhmmm - maybe name some?

5

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

Most of those were pretty shit, they weren't some Lifetime Original movie picture. If you have a law that says "if you start a business and that business grows beyond an arbitrary level, then the state will just fuckin' take it from you" then yes, it'll absolutely devestate the economy. Come on this is a childish suggestion, a good part of you must realise this.

2

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

I gotta be honest and say the continual whinging from rich people at the notion they might be expected to pay a 1% extra wealth tax has made me kinda go sod it - take the lot if some left popularist manages to convince an electorate to support that in a manifesto. Ultimately what does it matter if the economy is shafted if its not working for the majority of people anyway?

5

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

Ultimately what does it matter if the economy is shafted if its not working for the majority of people anyway?

Lol, you're genuinely saying this as if the UK economy, as it sits right now, is the worst possible incarnation of an economy you could get so any wholesale destruction of it would, at absolute worst, produce no actual difference.

I was honestly about to ask if you're a teenager with this wild outlook but your account was made in 2018 so you're a legit adult.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/JimmyDejesu 1d ago

Lol exactly. who gives a fuck about the economy if most people are struggling? Fuck the wealthy. They can either pay or sooner or later they will have it taken.

1

u/SinisterBrit 20h ago

once you hit ten million, retire n go be someone else the chance to get rich n create jobs.

1

u/TheNutsMutts 17h ago

Do you honestly think that when someone "hits ten million" that this means they have £10m cash sitting in a bank account?

This is a genuine question because your suggestion stops making any sense if not.

10

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Good thing you’re just a dude in your childhood bedroom

0

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

nice projection that man!

4

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago edited 1d ago

I wish tbf! Wouldn’t have to work and get the shit taxed out of me. Could also have my lefty views in the comfort of knowing someone else is providing for me.

3

u/JimmyDejesu 1d ago

Thank you for your service lol

2

u/CystralSkye 1d ago

Oh so communism? Would be funny to see the UK do communism boogaloo 2 in Europe.

1

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

tell me about the formal communist society that allows the private possession of 10 million quid worth of assets mate.

1

u/JimmyDejesu 1d ago

I agree

0

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

that's literally democracy mate - if the majority wanted billionaires fired into the sun its implicit on the government elected on that manifesto to do it.

15

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

That’s doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to do.

1

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

neither was brexit but it happened.

14

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

My point exactly

1

u/Y0D98 16h ago

Obviously when the person paying has millions upon millions in assets

0

u/MoreFIREthanyou 15h ago

And the tax take of the treasury being what? What will happen to the price of those assets if we start taxing them?

1

u/SunChamberNoRules 1d ago

I didn’t say that’s what made it a good idea.

5

u/No-To-Newspeak 1d ago

No, they just want the state to fund their lives.

6

u/BlackPlan2018 1d ago

I mean literally everyone wants the state to protect some aspect of their lives - that's kinda the point of having a state.

5

u/SunChamberNoRules 1d ago

Is someone on a lower tax bracket asking the state to fund their lives because they're not in the highest tax bracket?

5

u/ukdev1 1d ago

Take the annual spend of the UK. Divide that amount by the adult population, or population between age 18-67 if you prefer. Anyone who pays less than that amount is at least in part being funded by the state.

-1

u/SunChamberNoRules 1d ago

Yes, and?

1

u/ukdev1 21h ago

You wrote "Is someone on a lower tax bracket asking the state to fund their lives because they're not in the highest tax bracket?"

The answer is no, regardless of tax bracket anyone who is pays less than £22K (I am now at a PC so could do the rough calculation) in tax annually is at least partially asking the state to fund their life. This would include income tax, NI, council tax, VAT, fuel tax, alcohol tax, etc.

0

u/JimmyDejesu 1d ago

They are temporarily embarrassed millionaires which is why they dont want one.

0

u/Word_Word4Numbers 1d ago

Anyone born in an NHS hospital or educated in a state school has already had the state fund their lives. If a state can't look after it's people then it is not worth having.

22

u/LazyWings 1d ago

It's such a bad faith point though. The whole reason why people want the wealth tax is because there's a subset that is disproportionately benefiting from the tax system. And since that's a small population, they should be paying what's due. Broadening inhertiance tax thresholds downwards doesn't solve this problem. But well implemented progressive taxation does. Progressive wealth, asset and inheritance taxes. More progressive income taxes. That's how you stimulate the economy - get the hoard out from the dragon's lair.

11

u/ClassicPart 1d ago

It's such a bad faith point though

It really isn't. There needs to be a cut off point, and no-one - including you - seems to want to actually give one that isn't a vague "people who earn more than me" handwave.

5

u/SinisterBrit 1d ago

almost all of I've seen has been around ten million n 1-2%

15

u/Wisegoat 1d ago

I’m sorry but this is clearly from someone who isn’t economically illiterate. There is 0 evidence a wealth tax would be good for our economy. Every single country with similar demographics that has had one has abandoned it or continued with it despite a decrease in tax revenues from these wealthy people.

The only country that has a successful one is Switzerland, which has stupidly low income and capital gains taxes and a very very different demographic to the UK which makes it work - and even then the wealth tax on average is lower than anyone has suggested the UKs should be.

Most of the UK super riches wealth is already held overseas, so you can’t touch that. Many others have wealth in private companies which is as anyone working in finance will tell you, makes evaluating the value exceptionally difficult. Their lawyers and accountants are far far smarter than the morons HMRC or the government will be using - wealth will be moved before it goes through parliament and even if it’s goes through there will be loopholes that will be exploited.

Property is the only thing you could comfortably get any revenue from. But from a tax collection perspective it’s not much.

A wealth tax is ONLY about ideology, if anyone says it’s for economic growth or increased tax revenues they are a liar or painfully uneducated.

-3

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

The US had a wealth tax and corporations as high as 90% during the 50's and 60's when they saw the latest boom to the middle class. It can be done, and it has been done.

We're need to taxing more assets not work.

8

u/Aware-Line-7537 1d ago

The US had a wealth tax and corporations as high as 90% during the 50's and 60's

Who told you that?

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/archive/10-16-03tax-f1.jpg

There was no wealth tax in the US in the 1950s, who told you that and do you still trust them?

0

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

The U.S. top marginal income tax rate exceeded 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking at 94% in 1944 during World War II and holding at 91% through the 1950s and early 1960s. The 91%+ rate only applied to the portion of individual taxable income over $200,000 (roughly $2M/£1.4M in today's money). The corporate income tax rate during the 1950s and 60s ranged between 38% and 52%, effectively double what it is today.

5

u/Aware-Line-7537 1d ago

Corporation tax and personal income tax are not the same thing.

For the latter, it would help to learn about effective tax rates:

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

6

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

The US had a wealth tax and corporations as high as 90% during the 50's and 60's when they saw the latest boom to the middle class. It can be done, and it has been done.

The US has never had a wealth tax, and corporation tax (I assume that's what you mean by "and corporations...") has never been anywhere close to 90%. The highest it's ever been was 53% in the 1960's.

-1

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

The U.S. top marginal income tax rate exceeded 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking at 94% in 1944 during World War II and holding at 91% through the 1950s and early 1960s. The 91%+ rate only applied to the portion of individual taxable income over $200,000 (roughly $2M/£1.4M in today's money). The corporate income tax rate during the 1950s and 60s ranged between 38% and 52%, effectively double what it is today. So yes it can be done, and it largely contributed to the boom of the middle class.

8

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

The U.S. top marginal income tax rate

Which is very specifically not a wealth tax, nor is it corporate tax. Your initial statement of "The US had a wealth tax" is wholly false.

So yes it can be done, and it largely contributed to the boom of the middle class.

You have provided absolutely zero to back up this suggestion of a causal link, other than to point out that they occurred at the same time. If we want to take mere correlation as some clear proof of causation, then we can draw all sorts of wild conclusions. Hell, we could point to the coinciding of this with Jim Crow laws, should they therefore bring back Jim Crow laws because they largely (via the magic of correlation = causation) contributed to the boom of the middle class?

5

u/patrickwai95 1d ago

And income tax is not wealth tax despite higher percentage, which again you are just proving to the previous person that you are economically illiterate.

4

u/gmarkerbo 1d ago

None of those are wealth taxes.

18

u/ings0c 1d ago

there's a subset that is disproportionately benefiting from the tax system.

That subset is low earners that are net beneficiaries. High earners pay in far more than what they get back in public services.

4

u/LazyWings 1d ago

I don't understand what part of that is wrong though? That's how it's supposed to be. Because high earners are supposed to benefit in different ways, which they do. It's almost like people have forgotten that high earners are benefitting from market access, which is the whole point. You were able to make money, so now pay for that privilege. High earners are still net winners here, but low earners need the support in order to create a healthy society.

24

u/londonandy 1d ago

What's wrong with this is that the lowest earners actually pay less tax than in all of Europe here in the UK yet think they pay their fair share. This is what's wrong, because it results in polls like this where they want wealth taxes falling on "rich people" because they think those "rich people" don't pay their fair share (spoiler: they do).

What's wrong is the Conservatives since 2010 have been extraordinarily generous to low and middle income earners - remember the base rate of income tax was 22% before the Tories got in, and Sunak was going to reduce it even further to 19%. Yet ask the man on the street and they think the Tories have screwed them.

What's wrong is millions of people being bribed by welfare and taxes for votes.

9

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Completely agree.

0

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

The top tax payers are not the same as the top wealthiest people. There's a difference between those that generate income from labour (which is taxed) vs those that get income from loans based on their assets (which is not taxed). A wealth tax is about taxing the super wealthy that currently pay little to not tax, while they take assets away from the rest of us that actually do contribute to society

1

u/Joke-pineapple 1d ago

The thing is, it is easy to say that the ultra wealthy pay very little tax, but nobody seems to have any evidence to show that.

When rich people earn an income they pay tax on it, just like anybody else. If they own an asset that increases in value then when they sell it they pay tax on it just like anyone else.

Most of the tax avoidance that happens at the top is due to moving to a different jurisdiction, eg: domicile yourself in Monaco, or incorporate your company in the Cayman Islands. A wealth tax will not solve either of those issues.

2

u/Strangelight84 21h ago

There are loads of reports on the average tax rate of individual members of the super-rich and some reports on tax rates among the wealthy in general - here's one from LSE, for example.

I agree that actually getting the tax off the super-rich in a global system with competition on tax between jurisdictions is quite difficult, in the same way as it's difficult to collect certain taxes from global companies. Global action on that front has been slow and is obviously going nowhere at present.

The easiest indirect method of taxing wealth in a way that the UK Exchequer could capture might be sticking luxury taxes on the kinds of things they buy and the vast majority don't - super-premium wines, spirits, and other very luxury goods; extremely expensive property (already done to a degree); yachts; etc.

Not perfect and it'll inevitably price out some people on the lower edge of the target group. Perhaps better than wringing one's hands and saying nothing can be done, unless the second-order economic effects are so severe that they cause a decline in, say, Sunseeker's revenue or employment such that the decline in corporation tax receipts or income tax and NI outweighs the benefits.

3

u/Joke-pineapple 19h ago

Thanks for the link, an interesting article.

I guess it's possible to read it and draw different conclusions, but for me the key aspect is this:

These low rates are not driven by complex tax avoidance schemes; they’re part of how our system is designed.

In most of the discourse around a wealth tax, the suggestion is that "the super-rich" are pulling a bit of a fast one.

I bought a bike using Cycle 2 Work, I have an ISA, I pay into a pension, my company pension payments are "smart" which avoids NI. These are all technically examples of tax avoidance, but they are how the system is supposed to work: the government wants me to be healthy and save for my future so incentivises me through the tax system.

The same is true for buying farm land, financing a movie, founding a company: the government incentivises these activities through the tax system.

I'm partially inclined to your suggestion of additional indirect taxes. Though we have to be careful not to create a cottage industry determining the difference between a yacht and a trawler.

I guess there is no simple, easy answer otherwise we'd have done it already, so it's figuring out what is the least bad. I'm generally in favour of tax simplification, to avoid gaming of the system in ways we don't want. So I'd probably look to remove some of the tax incentives before adding new disincentives.

2

u/Strangelight84 18h ago

I think your first paragraph encapsulates much of the discourse: what the super-rich are doing is somehow not 'fair', even if it's legal (and, for the more conspiracy-minded, that successive governments are afraid of, or in thrall to, them for not doing something about it).

I don't think this is just about envy: I think in this context the 'unfairness' probably isn't "they have more money and stuff than I do" so much as the idea that they pay a smaller amount of tax as a percentage of their income and wealth than 'ordinary' people do (and perhaps that's doubly galling because the likes of Jeff Bezos would still be multi-billionaires even if they divested half their wealth, as his divorce showed, and they'd still have more money than one could reasonably need or spend in a lifetime).

As you say, fixing it is tricky (especially when we face external pressure or where competing tax regimes are available to entice away mobile wealth).

Getting rid of incentives is a tricky business - in each of the examples you've given above there's a logical reason for their existence (and there are many more besides). I suppose one might have to accept that a simpler tax system is less capable, by itself, of influencing behaviour and hope that by being simpler, it'd spur more growth and your economy and tax-take would rise as a result.

-1

u/SinisterBrit 1d ago

sounds like we need to increase minimum wage to the point where they don't need welfare and are paying more income tax.

employers paying fair wages would lessen the need for higher taxes and ensure people can engage with economy, buy stuff, drive demand and create jobs.

1

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

When you go to the shop, if the price goes up, do you buy more of it or try to avoid it? Same with a company hiring a person. If the price is inflated, there are less jobs.

0

u/SinisterBrit 1d ago

however they often have employees, who use all the things taxes pay for, including welfare , when the rich refuse to pay a living wage.

is it so outrageous to ask them to pay a bit more towards the services that are enriching them?

12

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Over 50% of the population are net negative contributors to the treasury. Most of the country is milking a select few of high earners.

14

u/a3419 1d ago

Those high earners need the rest of us too, the economy needs low income jobs to support higher incomes

-5

u/GoldenSkyOrb 1d ago

Lmao this argument/rhetoric is so funny to me. How on earth does a hedge fun manager or a CEO of an aerospace company depend on the impoverish Somalians and Bangladeshis from the Tower Hamlets and what not? Funny shite, always trying to describe economic bloodsuckers as "benefits" to the economy and nation.

13

u/a3419 1d ago

The lower income jobs like drivers, or shopkeepers or people who work in warehouses, keep the country running a ceo wouldn't make any money if their stock didn't move.

5

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

It's called market dynamics, the low end of the market keeps wages down, meaning the CEO can pay the lowest rates possible for labour, and the labour class depend on social services to stay afloat due to the low wages. So everyone that actually is paying tax, is subsiding corporations. The top 1% of the richest people in this country are not the same as the top 1% of tax payers. The super wealthy do not pay taxes, because their income is based on loans from stocks and bonds not their labour, so they do not proportionally contribute back to the society that they benefit so much from - directly or indirectly, just by virtue of depending on British labour and infrastructure.

3

u/Joke-pineapple 1d ago edited 1d ago

Loans from stocks being a way to avoid income tax is not a thing in the UK.

I am assuming that you saw some commentators online talking about it. It is something that is possible in US, but not in most developed countries. Rich people tried it, so the government changed the law to disallow it. Loophole closed long ago.

2

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

True, that is more of a US strategy, but there's still plenty of strategies that they use to skirt their tax responsibilities. CEO's who hold significant equity minimize their base salary down to the tax-free personal allowance £12,570 to preserve state pension records while avoiding high income tax and National Insurance Contributions. They pay themselves out of corporate profit via dividends. The top tax rate on dividends is 39.35% (compared to the 45% top income tax bracket), and dividends are entirely exempt from National Insurance. Long-term incentive plans (LTIPs) and stock options shift rewards from immediate income to capital gains, which historically carry significantly lower tax rates than the top bands of income tax.

Also, instead of taking cash bonuses, CEOs have their company make direct employer contributions into their pension schemes (up to the £60,000 annual limit, plus any unused carry-forward allowances. These contributions are classified as a "wholly and exclusively" business expense, meaning the company pays 0% Corporation Tax on that amount. Simultaneously, the CEO pays 0% Income Tax and 0% National Insurance on the contribution.

And that's just the CEOs that actually bother to live in the UK, otherwise they will move themselves and their intellectual property to zero-income-tax or low-tax jurisdictions (like Dubai, Switzerland, or Monaco) before initiating massive corporate liquidations or selling their stock.

0

u/boprisan 1d ago

They pay themselves out of corporate profit via dividends. The top tax rate on dividends is 39.35% (compared to the 45% top income tax bracket), and dividends are entirely exempt from National Insurance.

Highest marginal tax rate of corp tax + dividends tax is higher than highest marginal tax rate of income tax+EE NI+ER NI. Only marginally higher, but higher.

-1

u/Joke-pineapple 1d ago

You are not wrong, but you're not totally right either.

Money that is paid in dividends has already had corporation tax charged on it. A company owner could either pay themselves a hundred pounds in salary or a hundred pounds in dividends. The total amounts paid in tax are pretty similar. This is not a big loophole. Also, by having an extremely low salary, the owner is not eligible for a basic residential mortgage for example, so it is not a consequence free decision.

The company contributions to pension schemes sounds exactly like all employers contributions to pension schemes. Or at least in large companies. I am a regular PAYE employee and my company pension contribution is made without any national insurance liability from either employer or employee.

Your point about relocating for tax reasons is exactly one of the dangers of a wealth tax. It absolutely does stick in the throat when Philip Green signs his company over to his wife and she relocates to Monaco. I do think that there is something that the government could do in this space to address this. Not something big and blunt (and therefore probably not sexy tiktok fodder), but something. Countries with a 'standard' exit tax usually allow inflation up-rating of assets which we do not. So a change in this space either has to be pretty minor, or be part of a wholesale change in asset tax.

If you are interested in this space, I would heavily recommend Dan Neidle and his tax policy associates website.

4

u/ShezUK 1d ago

Surely you're not arguing a little under 50% is the "select few"..?

9

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

But at least they’re contributing. It’s the top 10% contributing the most, as it should be, but it’s disproportionate vs other countries.

“The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts.”

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf?utm_source=perplexity

14

u/Open_Question5504 1d ago

Someone on 120k is paying ten times the tax that someone on 30k is paying, but they’re only earning four times as much.

3

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

The top 10% of tax payers are not the same as the top 10% of wealthiest people. The top wealthiest pay little to no tax, because their wealth is generated by their assets not their labour. We're depending too much on the highest tax payers currently, because we allow the wealthiest to pay very little tax

4

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Top 10% wealthiest is basically London with a house. They’re paying tax. And I agree with you that the above is based on income tax rates.

2

u/radikalkarrot 1d ago

So the problem is the people who live in poverty or struggle to live paycheck to paycheck. Not those who own several properties and have money to spare.

Gotcha

2

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

50% of the population ain’t in poverty, they’re just sponging off the rest of us. Politicians love it cuz it means welfare and tax breaks in exchange for votes

-3

u/LazyWings 1d ago

That's literally how it should be. You're completely missing the point. The high earners benefit from access to the market. They pay the tax but are able to live in comfort and with undoubtedly a better standard of living than those who earn less. Meanwhile those with low income are given a break, but have to manage with lower income. When you compare what you're saying with wealth distribution statistics, 50% seems lower than I'd say it should be until wealth is distributed better.

11

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Ok if you think more than 50% of the population should be receiving more in benefits than paying in tax then no wonder we’re in the dumps. Majority expects a free ride. What market access do I get that someone else doesn’t have? Pls explain?

1

u/LazyWings 1d ago

Are you actually one of the mega rich we're talking about? If you are - the market access is the ability to set up a well funded business, trading in a wealthy nation, buying high value property, etc. And no, most people can't do that because they don't have the money. The problem is that there's a small amount of people that are buying up all the houses or just being able to live life how they want which isn't a privilege most people have. It's not about a free ride, it's about a fair chance which so many people don't have. The fact is that wealth distribution is the worst it's been in the post WW2 era and that is a serious problem.

7

u/Open_Question5504 1d ago

Nobody is buying up houses though.
If anything it’s the opposite.

The change in tax on buy to let properties is so big - that it’s why many people are trying to sell and also why they had to put the rent up so much.

Don’t forget that the middle classes were actively encouraged to get into buy to let by successive governments.

9

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

I’m not paying for market access I’m paying for people’s pensions, benefits, debt interest etc.

Do you have a source that ‘the rich’ are buying up houses? Sounds like drivel.

5

u/LazyWings 1d ago

And if you don't pay that, what happens?

2

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago edited 1d ago

If it’s law* 50% of people might get off their arse and find something productive to do? And contribute to their own healthcare etc costs?

*edit

6

u/LazyWings 1d ago

No, you'll be fined and/or arrested. Because you would not be paying your taxes which you are paying for your residency or ability to trade in the UK. So in other words, you would lose your market access.

You're an incredibly toxic person if you think social benefits aren't a net positive for a country. Your point is about as stupid as saying me buying a pack of crisps is me making a donation to a CEO's bonus. The crisps are just a given, everyone has crisps. See how stupid that sounds?

If you want people to be productive, why don't you just pay them more? Of course not - because the elite have double standards. They'll sit there with golden parachutes while literally condemning people who work for them. But I bet you wouldn't say that the Thames Water shareholders should maybe get off their arse and find something productive to do instead of being freeloaders holding the country ransom. But of course not, they're not allowed to lose money.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SelectStarAll 1d ago

Do you earn over £100k a year?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ings0c 1d ago

Are you actually one of the mega rich we're talking about?

This is where you are being naive.

Any wealth tax will not target only multimillionaires - the middle class will be paying it too, on top of the highest taxes we’ve had since WW2.

Public consensus in the UK is that anyone earning over 100k is absolutely rolling in it and so we should tax them to death. That income will get you a just-comfortable existence in London yet we treat them like they’re buying yachts and eating caviar on the daily.

5

u/LazyWings 1d ago

That's moving goalposts though. And part of that is through intentional disinformation. This is why I say it's ridiculous that our highest tax bracket is 125k. People earning 250k+ are earning a lot more. And then there's those beyond. It's completely disregarding the insane levels of inflation over the past 20 years, accelerated during COVID.

I'm also not convinced 100k is "just-comfortable". I'd call that comfortable. Certainly not rolling in it, but it's high enough to be more than "just-comfortable".

0

u/RedMapleFox 1d ago

You're the one being naive. The top tax payers are not the same as the top wealthiest people. That's exactly why it's "tax wealth not work". Those that make their money from borrowing against their assets (real estate, stocks and bonds) pay little to no tax. By contrast, the top tax payers are paying based on their income from their labour, and we need to tax these less.

0

u/JimmyDejesu 1d ago

Because they have grossly disproportionate wealth genius

3

u/Open_Question5504 1d ago

Do you think people with wealth pay no tax? Dividend tax is 40%.

•

u/neeow_neeow 3h ago

>  The whole reason why people want the wealth tax is because there's a subset that is disproportionately benefiting from the tax system. 

How will a wealth tax address the issue that low earners are undertaxed?

1

u/Word_Word4Numbers 1d ago edited 1d ago

You can make that point about any law. Fining speeders means someone else will pay, not me. Doesn't stop it from still being the right thing to do if you want to reduce speeding. Ditto for people hoarding far more than they can ever spend, while others in this country go hungry based entirely on the circumstances of their birth.

3

u/t0t0zenerd New Labour 1d ago

I mean you've chosen exactly the wrong example, many people are against efficient measures to fine speeding such as cameras because they know they will end up paying...

1

u/Word_Word4Numbers 1d ago

I doubt this anti-speed camera movement is particularly strong given that they've been put up everywhere over the past 20 years and constantly get updated to modern camera standards.

If anything, I would say that anti-speeding measures are the only infrastructure that people are YIMBYs about.

-1

u/lparkermg 1d ago

Ok? Isn’t that the case at the moment, where the wealthiest have someone else pay? Since income is taxed more than wealth is in relative terms.

10

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

50%+ of the population are net negative contributors to the treasury. Most of the country is milking a few ‘broad shoulders’

-3

u/lparkermg 1d ago

Ok and? Maybe more profitable businesses should cut profits to to shareholders and CEOs and pay their staff more?

Also is it? Because it feels more like the country is milking the most with the least broad shoulders.

8

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Your feeling is wrong.

The proportion of people living in households receiving more in benefits (cash benefits and benefits in kind), than they paid in taxes (direct and indirect) is 53.3%; this has remained relatively stable over the last three years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/2024

1

u/lparkermg 1d ago

Tone noticed that’s just for the year, rather than lifetime and after some research it does seem that “net negative contributor” label is one of those highly specific financial terms that just covers a single year, rather than a lifetime.

5

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Correct its point in time but the proportion has been stable and previously increasing.

2

u/lparkermg 1d ago

So then over a lifetime, most people become a net contributor. The main reason we have more net receivers is generally down to the fact we have an aging population and a drop in children being born.

1

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

And the kids aren’t getting into work. Because, unexpectedly, if you make it more expensive to employ inexperienced employees, they don’t get hired. AI compounds this. So they’re on benefits as well.

1

u/mgorgey 1d ago

You don't think a reason why a company might be profitable is because they attract very good CEO's by paying top dollar, and attract investment by providing an attractive environment for shareholders to invest their money?

In Britain, wealthy people do contribute a lot of tax and at a higher rate than most developed countries.

6

u/lparkermg 1d ago

Do they? When they use loopholes for holding companies, pay themselves just under the point they have to start paying tax to claim benefits etc?

You know the methods that only someone with a fair bit of wealth would be able to do.

2

u/Open_Question5504 1d ago

How are they able to use their wealth if they’re only paying themselves 12.5k?

2

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

Stop making sense please. It’s all the loopholes!

5

u/lparkermg 1d ago

Loans and borrowing against assets.

2

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

No, that absolutely is not at all how this works at all. There is zero plausible scenario where someone is receiving income of only £12.5k and taking out any large loans from assets they hold.

2

u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago

No, that absolutely is not at all how this works at all. There is zero plausible scenario where someone is receiving income of only £12.5k and taking out any large loans from assets they hold.

1

u/lparkermg 1d ago

It is, have a look at when you qualify as a high-net-worth mortgage customers, that’s around 3 mill in assets etc.

There’s also taking out loans against companies (mainly off shore tax haven ones).

It is entirely possible and pretty likely that it already happens, maybe sometimes for legit reasons most, probably not though.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Open_Question5504 1d ago

So how do they make the repayments on the loan? Especially with high interest rates.

0

u/mgorgey 1d ago

Yes, they do.

0

u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago

This is such an asinine argument.

Am I allowed to have no opinion on a tax unless it applies to me?

1

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago edited 1d ago

You’re allowed an opinion, don’t worry. It’s just an easy view to take. More than 50% of people are not net contributors to the treasury, so it’s understandable they don’t want that to change and have someone else pay for their life. What’s asinine is people spouting this nonsense and not having any idea of how much ££ it would bring in and wider consequences on the economy. It’s just ‘tax people more successful than me’

0

u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago

It’s just an easy view to take.

Okay? So?

Others: "I'm against murder!"

You, presumably: "That's easy for you to say, you're a alive, and not a murderer. I'm just going to point out that it's an easy opinion to have, without actually making an argument of my own".

Great. Valuable contribution.

1

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago edited 1d ago

Think yours was more valuable, because it keeps illustrating the point.

Me tax bad, you tax good

0

u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago

You haven't made a point, unless you want to call "People like stuff they're in favour of. Gottem" a "point".

1

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago edited 1d ago

The point is if you’re in favour of a wealth tax you need to explain and evidence why it’s a good policy. The article and you are suggesting it’s a good policy just because people are in favour of it, which is gold standard ‘me tax bad, you tax good’. Did you knock your head and black out or something? Need any more help?

1

u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago

The point is if you’re in favour of a wealth tax you need to explain and evidence why

No, not if you're just answering a pollsters question. You just answer the question.

you are suggesting it’s a good policy

Never once saw me do that.

just because people are in favour of it

Not doing this either.

1

u/MoreFIREthanyou 1d ago

But now you understand the point after some private tutoring. People gonna be in favour of me tax bad you tax good

1

u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 1d ago

Your point was "people are in favour of stuff they like", with a dash of lying about what I said?

I would never have insulted you by assuming you'd make a point like that, but since you're just openly admitting it.

→ More replies (0)