Forum menu
The human race is doomed in my opinion.
Everyone's so God damn selfish.
Humans don't tend to care about anything as long as they feel like they have got one over on someone else.
It's this biological urge to be the strongest that will be our downfall as a species.
I don't see there's any alternatives..
Remove them from political system all together, not ****ing about with taxing them. In my utopia, you can either be very rich or you can take part in civic society, but not both. Draw a line at your proposed £10M and you say above this, and you can only vote in local elections, you can't create or donate [to] a political party , and you can't vote in any general election. If we want to remove the power of wealth from politics, then remove the wealthy.
The Greens are no better at this than any other party, believing that they can use the donations of the ultra wealthy without consequence, and our current system is set up to allow it to happen.
The horrible truth is there's plenty of money to fix everything, but most of it is frozen in the top 1%.
the top 1% average wealth is about five and bit million, and mostly it's property wealth and pensions. Even if you bumped up council tax to even something approaching the current value of these homes, and taxed pensions (v. popular by the way*) the money raised would be meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
*some sarcasm may have been used here.
How are you going to measure it and value it? If it's not income, how will you collect it? Who will do that work? The HMRC isn't set up to do it, and hasn't got the staff, so how much will it cost to recruit and pay them? What happens if valuations of wealth are challenged? The courts are literally years behind, so how long will you allow very rich people to tie up evaluations in legal proceedings, and how much will that cost the treasury?
A whole load of irrelevant points. Implement what is being taxed and at what level, they put the onus of the people who should be paying the tax to declare it. If they get caught not declaring/paying then off to prison for tax evasion.
Spend the first few years resourcing HRMC to check that says a 100 known wealthy individuals are declaring/paying and after a number of high profile people are put in prison it should get the message across.
I don't see there's any alternatives..
I think - or at least I pray* - the AI revolution is going to crystallise the issue of taxes and redistribution. Western economies have broadly worked on the basis that the money created by govts and businesses passes through the working population before ending up in the pockets of the people at the top, and that's how everyone makes a living. Pretty soon though a huge number of people are going to be removed from the pipeline and that's going to require radical thinking on taxes, benefits, redistribution of wealth and all sorts of other stuff - like what will previously productive and skilled people do with themselves in a world with no work or purpose? Wealth taxes won't be enough, it's going to require a complete rewiring of capitalism, the financial system, and long-held conventions on tax, work and benefits.
*if we carry on with business as usual in the wake of AI disruption I reckon we're heading for mass poverty and social unrest within a decade. I know the tech utopians keep quoting Jevons Law like it's some physical force of nature but I just don't see it applying in a scenario where 10s of millions of jobs evaporate in just one or two political cycles.
A whole load of irrelevant points.
Our system is largely based on taxing income, not assets/wealth, you'd absolutely need some sort of valuation process. It's not irrelevant points, say your income comes from a private company, it's relatively straightforward to tax that, the company itself: not so much. What will you do if the income it generates is worth more than the value of the company?
Sooner or later private debt, unemployment plus asset Implosion (boom and bust) will cause a whole load of chaos and test the resolve how governments need to work. Without government investment and nationalised services many will struggle to survive to an acceptable level.
It's a shame this will only be realised through a collapse rather than front running the whole system.
I really don't know why we adhere so much to a system that serves so many in such a terrible way.
There literally is a system in place for provisioning the government. It's a shame it's been rigged and optimised for bond trading. An inefficient control mechanism that serves the wealthy to dictate policy choices for the rest of us.
Sooner or later private debt, unemployment plus asset Implosion (boom and bust) will cause a whole load of chaos and test the resolve how governments need to work. Without government investment and nationalised services many will struggle to survive to an acceptable level.
It's a shame this will only be realised through a collapse rather than front running the whole system.
I really don't know why we adhere so much to a system that serves so many in such a terrible way.
There literally is a system in place for provisioning the government. It's a shame it's been rigged and optimised for bond trading. An inefficient control mechanism that serves the wealthy to dictate policy choices for the rest of us.
Wow. Rejection of the centre-right Status quo.
Where's Rebuild/Reframe/Replay Britain or whatever the hell they're called?
It's quite possible no matter how temporary - Greens will lead a poll at some point this year.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2028765671304167655
Right... closer to home...
From today, new asylum seekers will only get temporary refuge here, with regular reviews to try and get rid of them.
Imagine bumping into that on a dark night, you’d freak out
Misogynoir on STW? Someone should mention this to the guy that said Morrissey fans aren't racist because they look like STWers.
Our system is largely based on taxing income, not assets/wealth, you'd absolutely need some sort of valuation process. It's not irrelevant points, say your income comes from a private company, it's relatively straightforward to tax that, the company itself: not so much. What will you do if the income it generates is worth more than the value of the company?
Again, put rules in place and make it the responsibility of the wealthy person to work out and declare. If they don't bother and get caught then bingo.
The video earlier analysing betting odds and the next election was interesting. Will watch with interest to see how this year pans out……
Again, put rules in place
Change the entire basis of our tax regime then, in the hope that it brings in more revenue, somehow?
It's quite possible no matter how temporary - Greens will lead a poll at some point this year.
Please can it both happen and not be temporary, at the very least I'd hope it starts pushing back against the right and the wave they've been riding for too long.
It's quite possible no matter how temporary - Greens will lead a poll at some point this year.
Please can it both happen and not be temporary, at the very least I'd hope it starts pushing back against the right and the wave they've been riding for too long.
Would make a change from all the hell we've been through.
I think "wealth tax" works in the same way for the left as "send them back" does for the right. Find an out-group and heap all your troubles onto them.
Except countries actually have wealth taxes and they actually work.
Not as many countries as 30 years ago but the neo-liberal project has been systematically undermining them and removing them. Mostly using the arguments you just used which mostly boil down to 'it's too difficult'.
The reason the neo-liberals are so keen to get rid of wealth taxes is because they are so effective. Ownership is only easier to trace and prove with digitalisation. There has never been an easier time to implement a wealth tax than now.
But yes, it will result in redistribution so there will be endless arguments against them. Funded entirely by the people who will have to pay them.
A wealth tax is of little use without the government spending to get the things we need in the first place.
Don't forget tax is extractive - that money goes nowhere near spending. Aiming for a surplus is doom-laden.
Removing more money from the rich is a good idea though.
But yes, it will result in redistribution so there will be endless arguments against them. Funded entirely by the people who will have to pay them.
Fabulous, they get to pay out trying to stop them and then pay the tax!
Kemi Badanoch at PMQs seems most disgruntled that British service personal aren’t being sent to die in the Middle East at Trumps behest.
Finger on the pulse of the nation, as ever Kemi
She's also annoyed about us "looking after our own".
Starmer's appearances in the commons this week have me thinking I was too quick to judge him as regards the UK response to this war so far. The country is closely watching what he does as all this escalates though. So far his position, and our involvement, seems very well thought out... even if it's depressing for us to have any involvement at all. He did take a difficult (and to my mind correct) position not to allow UK resources to be used in the original attacks. But there is still a strong chance of us being dragged in too deep. Thanks USA voters. Still it's a small comfort we don't have a Tory (or Blair) government in place and acting all gung ho as the right in opposition are pushing for now.
Bad Enoch was woeful at PMQs today. You could hear the groans from all sides when she was talking.
Starmer's last remarks were excellent:
"Moments like this define a Leader of the Opposition. They can either step up, act in the national interest and show that they are fit to be Prime Minister, or they can expose their utter irrelevance. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen the second".
Starmer's appearances in the commons this week have me thinking I was too quick to judge him as regards the UK response to this war so far. The country is closely watching what he does as all this escalates though. So far his position, and our involvement, seems very well thought out... even if it's depressing for us to have any involvement at all. He did take a difficult (and to my mind correct) position not to allow UK resources to be used in the original attacks. But there is still a strong chance of us being dragged in too deep. Thanks USA voters. Still it's a small comfort we don't have a Tory (or Blair) government in place and acting all gung ho as the right in opposition are pushing for now.
My opinion of him has gone downhill rapidly since he first became Labour leader, but I agree, he's doing a decent impersonation of being the adult in the room right now, even if the competition is exceptonnally weak.
I fear this war is going to stuff any chance of the economy recovering though, whoever was in charge, on whatever plan they followed
Except countries actually have wealth taxes and they actually work.
And many countries that had them have stopped them, because they're expensive to administer, and the revenue generated isn't worth the cost. In this country we've encouraged people to buy a house and take out a pension, these are the two biggest contributors to people being in the 1%. To then tax those people punitively because they saved for the future or have seen the value of their house increase is perverse.
If you want to tax rich people to take their money, or exclude their influence for politics, then reform the current income tax brackets or exclude them from civic society. Creating new taxation methods (by wealth) is neither a pragmatic or practical approach.
Bad Enoch was woeful at PMQs today. You could hear the groans from all sides when she was talking.
Coming off losing her deposit in last weeks byelection with 1.8% of the vote, the gap between her perception of her own abilities and her actual abilities is a yawning chasm. She may actually be worse in that department than Liz Truss
Today’s perwas frankly embarrassing. She made an utter tit of herself. Summed up perfectly, as ever, by John Crace
Wow. Rejection of the centre-right Status quo.
Where's Rebuild/Reframe/Replay Britain or whatever the hell they're called?
It's quite possible no matter how temporary - Greens will lead a poll at some point this year.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2028765671304167655
That's actually a really interesting graph...
We now have a multi party system at play... for example a green & lib dem coalition could potentially form a goverment! They dont even need the labour vote!
I love this shit! the bunary two party sytem is dead, and good riddance!
On the bad side, I suppose the conservatives could be the lesser partner in coalition with reform, to make up the numbers, but I suspect that's highly unlikely as all the reform leaning tory MP's of any consequence have already jumped ship to reform.
We now have a multi party system at play... for example a green & lib dem coalition could potentially form a goverment! They dont even need the labour vote
For sure - it means there's other possibilities than we are going to get Reform.
Also I stick by my idea that Reform have exhausted their 'no solutions' to politics style.
Goodwin has come across as a whinging sore loser too.
People genuinely want hope and change - bitterness only goes so far. Reform offer no hope. It's a tired platform.
Peak Reform could be here.
(Of course this can change in an instant but let's take what we can get.)
Seriously good one Zack - for altering the landscape of politics to positivity.
If Starmer had one good solid plan in his ridiculous brain - it would be to ape the Greens, now. Literally go in the other direction.
(Although it's possible they're too far gone too - with him as leader.)
That's actually a really interesting graph...
We now have a multi party system at play... for example a green & lib dem coalition could potentially form a goverment! They dont even need the labour vote!
Possibly, the other poll released at more or less the same time is way less optimistic for anyone that doesn't want reform.
I love this shit! the bunary two party sytem is dead, and good riddance!
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government I wonder if we've ever been here before? But sure, they two party system is dead. We've replaced the Labour and Tories, with Reform and the Greens....
never seen anything to make me suspect my husband has broken any law
is that very carefully constructed language or a dreadful response?
It’s not saying he didn’t do it. It’s not saying she is concerned for him. She then went on to list all the things she hasn’t done - I think those were probably reasonably questions for her lawyers / the whips to ask her if she had done but again without anyone in the media suggesting the details of the offences it seemed odd to say “I never saw him do it, and anyway I was never even unwittingly part of whatever I never saw him do”.
In this country we've encouraged people to buy a house and take out a pension, these are the two biggest contributors to people being in the 1%
Sorry, I can't let that go. Source please.
You need at least £3 million in assets to be in the top 1% in the UK.
Yeah, if your home and household pensions combined are worth close to £4,000,000… then good on you, but that’s got little to do with “encouraging” the general population to buy a house and take out a pension.
Also, I’d advise not bringing it up with a young person looking at decades of debt and rent ahead of them.
@MoreCashThanDash, it depends what you mean by "the 1%" . You can either measure it as taxable income, or assets. So for income to be in the top 1% you'll need a income above (roughly) £160,000. For assets wealth it's usually things I've mentioned, property, pension, investments etc and you'll have something like £3 and a bit million
Extract
"The wealthiest 1% of households had wealth of at least £3,121,500. The wealthiest 10% of households had wealth of £1,200,500 or more, while the least wealthy 10% had £16,500 or less"
"For the wealthiest 10% of households, net property wealth (38%) and private pension wealth (36%) made up most of their wealth. For the least wealthy 10% of households, physical wealth made up almost all household wealth."
And how many people do you know with property and pensions above that amount? I know a few, and 1% on that wouldn't change their lives. Assuming you tax the top 1%, when most plans seem to involve taxing "wealth" at higher levels, eg £10m.
Shame the ONS doesn't make it obvious what makes up the wealth of the top 1%
I'll admit that the systems may not be in place to value and collect a wealth tax, but if the threshold is say £10m, it would be cost effective.
but that’s got little to do with “encouraging” the general population to buy a house and take out a pension.
It's pretty much what the property owning age groups (Shorthand; Boomers and Gen-X) was asked to do: Buy a house and plan for the future, which is what they've done, and successive govts have encouraged them to do it with favourable tax rates for savings/pensions, and (more or less) low interests for mortgages.
There's little trust in politics now. Can you imagine if any govt turned around and said to two generations worth of it's citizens, "Oh, that thing we encouraged you all to do, we're now going to penalise you for doing it, because we really haven't thought it through"
but if the threshold is say £10m, it would be cost effective.
If ever there was a group wealthy enough to launch a class action lawsuit against (any) govt who decided to change the tax laws to target them specifically....
And many countries that had them have stopped them, because they're expensive to administer, and the revenue generated isn't worth the cost.
No, they stopped them because wealth taxes are the single most effective way of putting a brake on the rich continuing to acquire wealth at an exponential rate.
Now that the results of abolishing wealth taxes and growing inequality are really starting to be felt across society the story we've been sold by neo-liberals about how collecting wealth tax is 'too hard' is starting to be questioned and it is not standing up well to scrutiny.
I'm not sure they would even do that - better to pay an accountant to move stuff into trust or do other such shenanigans to avoid/reduce it just as already happens with people who fall foul of the IHT thresholds. I'm not a fan of "wealth tax" as such but I think there are other things you can do to redress the balance - which are still ways of extracting tax from the wealthy:but if the threshold is say £10m, it would be cost effective.
If ever there was a group wealthy enough to launch a class action lawsuit against (any) govt who decided to change the tax laws to target them specifically....
- Align CGT with Income Tax. Having more capital should not be a way to earn money with less tax. You can still devise schemes to encourage behaviours you want, just as there are with EVs, Pensions etc for employees.
- Abolish stamp duty (helps buyers) and charge CGT on all property sales (taxing the unearned wealth).
- Treat ALL inheritance just like any other income. That would encourage people to think more about who its distributed to and when, close the trust loophole so that just like EBTs they are taxable. You can of course keep spouse exemptions, and defer payment when still living in a house etc.
I'm not sure why we are worried about taxing boomers and gen X - they've been underpaying their whole lives: national debt has increased! I suspect the problem, as always, is that we think other people should be paying more tax.
I'm not sure why we are worried about taxing boomers and gen X
It's not so much who they are, more what they've been encouraged to do. I can't see any govt. who decides that in order to uplift the poor into home ownership and earning enough so that they can save some of it, they're going do it off the backs of both [checks notes] home-owners and pensioners....lasting longer than a couple of Trusses*
*The Truss. The soon to be internationally agreed standard measure of any poorly thought through Political decision.
That's pretty much the definition of a redistributive policy. You might be right that the voters won't buy into it, but hey.
national debt has increased! I
National debt has to increase if the government deficit spends. Money effectively sits in private savings whilst that happens.
Contraction of national debt = removing money out of the private sector.
It's not a metric of a bad economy. It's operating how it's designed to operate. (That's not to make an excuse for bad spending choices. That's always a feature.)
It's impossible for the government to stash money and spend it from a savings account. Doesn't happen.
but if the threshold is say £10m, it would be cost effective.
This is the top 0.05% of the population. And yet, here's NickC doing what happens when any tax on the rich is proposed... pretending it's a "tax on homeowners", or a "tax on pensioners"... yes, people with £10,000,000 in assets are likely to be both home owners, and pensioners... but taxing them a bit more isn't about do so for all "home-owners and pensioners".