Forum menu
Going back to the current issues, Does badenoch really think that describing opposition mp's as orcs and goons is a good look?
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.
It's not pretending its a tax on homeowner and pensioners. That ONS report tells you that the top 10% of asset wealth is people's houses and their pension pots, what else are you going to tax if not those two things?
"For the wealthiest 10% of households, net property wealth (38%) and private pension wealth (36%) made up most of their wealth.
The proposal was on a tax on those with over 10 million pounds in assets... the top 0.05%. Of course they have (expensive) houses and (big pension pots), but increasing their taxes wouldn't affect 99.97% of home owners, or 99.98% of pensioners. It's not a proposal to tax all "home-owners and pensioners"... but to tax the wealthiest in society a bit more. Just because the richest in society might have some of their wealth held in their homes and pensions, doesn't mean we can't tax them a bit more.
"For the wealthiest 10% of households, net property wealth (38%) and private pension wealth (36%) made up most of their wealth.
Imagine this... what's true of the top 10% might not be true for the top 0.05%
Even if it was... if you have a £3,800,000 home and a private pension of £3,600,000... pay more tax.
Wealth redistribution is needed in the UK. More now than at any point in the last 50 years.
Wealth redistribution is needed in the UK. More now than at any point in the last 50 years.
Then just reintroduce the 90% income tax bracket. Lifting people up out of poverty so that they can buy a home and save some money for later on in life, by raising taxes on the folks that have bought a home and managed to save some for later on in life is bonkers.
by raising taxes on the folks that have bought a home and managed to save some for later on in life is bonkers
Those aren't people who have assets of more than £10,000,000. Are they.
I'm only labouring the point because this is exactly the false arguments made against taxing wealth by the very wealthy (and those employed by the very wealthy to make their case for them). Taxing the very wealthy is not a tax on "folks that have bought a home and managed to save some for later on in life"... it is tax on people with multi-million pound property portfolios and investments.
How about putting up VAT on high-value luxury goods to 30%?
I'm not sure what this issue with "we encouraged you to buy property and invest in a pension, its worked out very well for YOU so now you need to 'repay us' for the advice, tax incentives, and economic conditions we created that made you not just wealthy, but wealthier than many others who followed similar advice". Afterall the encouraged us to get jobs and we pay tax on the earnings; they encouraged people to take out student loans which are effectively a tax; they encouraged us to get EVs which they are now taxing... Its not like anyone has proposed a wealth tax at a level where if the government encouragement had been ignored they would have been better off?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.
Oh I am sure it is politically unpalletable. That said if its based at the sort of levels in this thread and "marketed" right it will be fine because nobody cares when people who are richer than them have to pay more tax!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.
The main issue I have with a wealth tax is that the presumption seems to be that people with large assets have ready access to cash. Whilst that might be true of some, in other cases the assets may be tied up in property they'd have to sell to realise the assets, pensions which they can't readily access or businesses where the shares are not traded and so there's no way to turn paper value into cash.
you'll have an interesting debate on what "high-value luxury goods" are - e.g. is a £5K ebike a luxury? is it high value compared to a £500 commuter? cars would be an obvious option - but many high net worths will be putting cars through companies already. Even once you decide on that you will see a drop in sales, so if those goods are made in the UK (or imported and marked up) that hurts your economy and likely tax take elsewhere.How about putting up VAT on high-value luxury goods to 30%?
The main issue I have with a wealth tax is that the presumption seems to be that people with large assets have ready access to cash.
One of the reasons for a "wealth tax" would be to encourage the very wealthy to free up assets. If you own 20 properties, and rent out 18, having to sell one of them, or more likely not buy another one, to pay your taxes isn't an error... it's the tax doing what it should be doing... stopping the top 0.05% of the population gathering more and more wealth (that includes property). If we're happy with the super rich getting ever richer, while many people are getting worse off in real terms... then by all means say that the richest shouldn't be taxed because they own so many assets, rather than having cash lying around. Most people with very little wealth also don't have ready access to much cash, it's not an excuse they can use to not pay their taxes.
The main issue I have with a wealth tax is that the presumption seems to be that people with large assets have ready access to cash.
It would be a surprise if people with lots of wealth didn't have it in assets, nobody thinks they have it all stuffed in a mattress.
The main issue I have with a wealth tax is that the presumption seems to be that people with large assets have ready access to cash.
It would be a surprise if people with lots of wealth didn't have it in assets, nobody thinks they have it all stuffed in a mattress.
So its a bit like the farmers with their inheritance tax - lots of SMEs on paper will have their owner(s) worth a significant sum, add a fairly ordinary house and a pension and they could certainly be in the £3M category being bandied about and £10M is not impossible - but they only have that if they sell the business (which they would pay CGT on anyway), they might even have remortaged their house or given personal guarantees to fund the business - but on paper they appear to be millionaires. So what's the consequence of this? People having to sell businesses before they were ready to? People not growing businesses when they look likely to tip over a value threshold? Businesses which don't actually make that much profit being liquidated to pay tax bills - but putting ordinary employees out of work?
PROPERTY IS WEALTH.
Being rich shouldn’t absolve you of paying your fair share. Land and property owners shouldn’t be allowed to avoid taxes while those with very little assets have to pay taxes on their work, taxes to live where they live, taxes on the things they need to survive, etc. This whole idea that you’re not really rich if you own land, or homes, or retail property… because it’s not “money” is nonsense.
but on paper they appear to be millionaires
If they own land, buildings, vehicles, and a pension pot totalling over £10,000,000… what would you call them? We can call them the “struggling rich” if you like. It’s just language to defend the most wealthy from being asked to contribute more. We’ve had decades of it now. Time for some redistribution. I know farmers who own no land at all, and don’t even own the roof over their heads. How do we make things more equal for them, if not by changing how the landowners and landlords they pay rent to are taxed?
It's easy enough to calculate people's net wealth, Poly. 5 million farm, 2 million of debt, tax 3 million. Then have a very progressive scale rather than tipping points.
It's easy enough to calculate people's net wealth, Poly. 5 million farm, 2 million of debt, tax 3 million. Then have a very progressive scale rather than tipping points.
im perfectly aware of how you calculate net worth. I’m not sure what you mean by “they”. The greens are proposing a 1% tax on wealth over £10M (and more at 10Bn!) but Corbyn previously suggested top 10% of society should pay 2%.
so let’s say a small business owner owns the business they founded, their house car etc are all mortgaged, financed to the hilt and other than pension savings they don’t have any other assets - but because of the value of the business their net worth means they have a £25k tax bill. Where do they find £25k? and more to the point £25k year after year (until the networth is removed below the threshold). There are no liquid assets. The “glib” answer is you sell the business - but reality is that may not be the best thing for UK Plc. The business employs staff, pays corporation tax, vat etc. You can’t with an unlisted business easily sell small parts of it. Selling businesses is a slow, time consuming and high risk process - HMRC will tell you what it’s worth in their opinion but the reality is the only valuation that matters is the one a buyer is willing to pay. HMRC are not a buyer.
depending on the thresholds involved farmers will fall into this - yes not all farmers, and perhaps there’s option to sell parts of a large farm, but is that what we mean by a wealth tax? Someone whose family have farmed the same place for generations and despite their actual income consistently falling in real terms their net worth has spiralled because of land prices? I have much less sympathy for them in terms of inheritance tax but if you suddenly slap them an extra tax on them when still alive I can see the easy option is to sell up. The same for every business that owns land that might be used for housing. Businesses which are heavily reinvesting in growth would be more likely to strip the cash out both reducing the value and funding the owners short term.
Now of course you can make all sorts of rules and exemptions but then suddenly the accountants find ways to call Jeremy Clarkson a farmer!
So to me the idea sounds good, but the realities are unlikely to achieve quite the effects people think. Then the question becomes why is the threshold £xM and y% - those are just nice round numbers which make most people feel it’s not their problem.
Wouldnt it be better just to tax all unearned wealth (inheritance, capital gains etc) at the point it becomes liquid? If you inherit a £500K property and £100k in shares/cash at the moment most people in the UK pay nothing in tax - but that gives them and their offspring an incredible advantage over someone who by pure luck does not inherit. I don’t know why there’s a political stigma about IHT other than accepting that people need to pay tax, and it’s not always other people!
Being rich shouldn’t absolve you of paying your fair share. Land and property owners shouldn’t be allowed to avoid taxes while those with very little assets have to pay taxes on their work, taxes to live where they live, taxes on the things they need to survive, etc. This whole idea that you’re not really rich if you own land, or homes, or retail property… because it’s not “money” is nonsense.
People with assets have to pay taxes on all the things you listed too! I’m not saying fixed assets are not wealth - quite the opposite I’m saying they ARE wealth and will be part of the calculation but if you can’t easily liquidate fractions of them you might be pushing people out of those things which might not be desirable for society. It’s easy to see life through the bubble of the “average” person but we need people to start companies, run farms, etc. When those people cash in they absolutely should pay tax (they do CGT - it possibly should be higher), and if their assets are bringing them a return they should pay tax (they do). But should someone who has value because someone else has calculated an asset they have no intention of selling has got some worth? Paper valuations are just that - my house is worth about 50% more than I paid for it, but it doesn’t actually mean I have any more wealth that the day I bought it. (I’m nowhere near £10M so this is not a personal protection view).
I think if a tax is fair then everyone should pay it - a massive threshold that makes it only a concern for other people is just a trick to get democratic support. If the logic behind a tax is fair then everyone should pay it (like income, CGT, etc). So what % of YOUR wealth (including your pension you can’t currently access, the value of your house that’s gone up through doing nothing etc) would you be prepared to pay in extra tax each year (including when you retire)?
“You can tax the wealthy more than the poor… it’s not fair”
The con works.
If you have wealth you can turn it into cash the same way billionaires can spend money despite having no income.
You take out a loan secured against your assets (generally at very reasonable interest rates).
Norway has a wealth tax and for a not insignificant number of it’s wealthiest citizens, wealth tax is the only tax they pay because it’s the only tax they can’t avoid.
@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."
Part of the problem in this country is people equating top 1% income with top 1% wealth.
A top-1% income can make you quite comfortable, but it's not enough to buy a 4-bed detached house in some parts of the country. To earn that salary you have to actually go out and work for it, and you then get taxed at almost 50% for the privilege.
Whereas someone with a net worth of £3.1m can just sit around in their plush house doing nothing and watch as their net worth grows by more than £160k in an average year, while paying no tax on it at all.
It's all arse backwards. Work should be taxed less, assets more.
Where do they find £25k?
Same place as they find the VAT, the social security payments, the property taxes money to pay the bills etc.
I ran a profitable business for 10 years paying a shed load of those things; 55% taxe of one sort or another on the profits before I could put it in my pocket.
It's not a wealth tax on owners that's going to break a camels back that hasn't already been broken by all the other taxes and charges businesses pay.
And a wealth tax would presumaeably allow a reduction in some of those taxes that really put the brakes on business and employment, NI for example. Thus putting more money in working people's pockets and driving UK plc.
If you want to avoid taxing where it does the most damage then a wealth tax should be top of your list not NI.
P.S. I think you'll find I wrote "then" not "they".
25k so if the wealth tax were at .5% at that point on a progressive scale with the wealth being taxed over a threshold of say 1.5m the person would be worth 6.5 million. People with 6.5 million who can't raise £25 000 a year, come on.... . At 1% they'd be worth 4 million
then you understand that the company and the individuals are usually different legal entities (the former paying corporation tax on top of all the other stuff). If you honestly think there are no companies with paper valuations which would take them into this regime but that don’t have an extra £38k a year to give to its shareholders to pay tax you are deluded (yes they need to find 38k in order for the shareholder to have an extra 25k because a dividend incurs tax) - that’s assuming the company can even legally distribute dividends - there’s plenty of loss making companies with million pound valuations who don’t have profits to distribute.Where do they find £25k?Same place as they find the VAT, the social security payments, the property taxes money to pay the bills etc.
I ran a profitable business for 10 years paying a shed load of those things; 55% taxe of one sort or another on the profits before I could put it in my pocket.
well we may agree to some extent on that running a business is really expensive.It's not a wealth tax on owners that's going to break a camels back that hasn't already been broken by all the other taxes and charges businesses pay.
is that anyone’s official policy? I must be cynical thinking the politicians are much more likely to add a tax than remove it!And a wealth tax would presumaeably allow a reduction in some of those taxes that really put the brakes on business and employment, NI for example. Thus putting more money in working people's pockets and driving UK plc.
you will get no quibble from me that employers NI is ecconomic stupidity.If you want to avoid taxing where it does the most damage then a wealth tax should be top of your list not NI.
so you did - appologies - your comment is clearer you are talking about something different from the wealth taxes being proposed by some UK political parties.P.S. I think you'll find I wrote "then" not "they".
25k so if the wealth tax were at .5% at that point on a progressive scale with the wealth being taxed over a threshold of say 1.5m the person would be worth 6.5 million. People with 6.5 million who can't raise £25 000 a year, come on.... . At 1% they'd be worth 4 million
you can make up hypothetical numbers if you want but the rates suggested by people actually in UK politics are 1% and 2%. I’m sure there will be plenty of farmers and other smallish business owners who aren’t living lavish lifestyles but are sitting on (overpriced) assets which they can’t readily access.
norways threshold is massively lower than being discussed / proposed here… it’s c. £150k but they also don’t have a direct equivalent of council tax so if the question is can we substitute a council tax with a calculation based on net assets then that is rather different. But Google tells me the Norwegian rules discount the value of your main home and exclude official pension schemes so probably the objections you are getting here are also less likely to offend. I think it’s also dangerous to compare Norway to the UK - they are quite open about tax and it’s culturally seen as everyone’s responsibility to pay it whereas the Uk it seems people who find ways to dodge think themselves clever, and perhaps because services are not at Norwegian level people resent paying! However even there many wealthy Norwegians don’t like it and try to move to low tax states!If you have wealth you can turn it into cash the same way billionaires can spend money despite having no income.
You take out a loan secured against your assets (generally at very reasonable interest rates).
Norway has a wealth tax and for a not insignificant number of it’s wealthiest citizens, wealth tax is the only tax they pay because it’s the only tax they can’t avoid.
And I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think someone with a not particularly profitable business, can easily borrow against that business to pay their personal tax. In many cases the sound financial decision would be to liquidate the business - screw the employees and enjoy your money whilst paying a little bit of wealth tax. That’s probably what every farmer, haulier, coach hire business in the country should do.
I think it’s also dangerous to compare Norway to the UK - they are quite open about tax and it’s culturally seen as everyone’s responsibility to pay it whereas the Uk it seems people who find ways to dodge think themselves clever, and perhaps because services are not at Norwegian level people resent paying! However even there many wealthy Norwegians don’t like it and try to move to low tax states!
If your argument is that it won't work because people in the UK don't like to pay tax then I guess I can't really argue with that.
Funny you should mention people leaving Norway to avoid the tax. It absolutely happens and is a big driver for the sentiment that Norway should move further away from the EU, given that it is the EU's free movement of capital that allows people to move out of Norway but retain their ownership of Norwegian assets.
It's not a coincidence that the removal of wealth taxes across EU countries all happened after the free movement of capital rules were introduced. It's almost like a race to the bottom was part of the plan and it wasn't the reason we were given that wealth taxes are difficult to administer.
I mentioned it on the Brexit benefits thread, but this is one problem the UK currently doesn't have since it's not bound by the free movement of capital rules.
What the EU should really be doing is introducing an EU wealth tax but that's a discussion for another thread.
And I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think someone with a not particularly profitable business, can easily borrow against that business to pay their personal tax. In many cases the sound financial decision would be to liquidate the business - screw the employees and enjoy your money whilst paying a little bit of wealth tax. That’s probably what every farmer, haulier, coach hire business in the country should do.
How many people with a combined wealth of over £10 million have nothing they can borrow against?
I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people with that kind of net worth are effectively living in poverty since none of their assets are liquid and can't figure out any way to raise the money for a wealth tax.
If the only way to pay the tax is liquidate the business then it sounds like the business was going to be liquidated anyway. At least in this way the liquidation can be used to pay off the tax they owe.
I'm not saying that I have a clue what the correct answer is, but we seem to come back to a circular argument that we need to raise taxes to help fund public services but we can't raise taxes because people can't/won't pay them so our public services are falling apart.
Surveys show most people are in favour of taxes to fund services in theory, but don't vote for it in practice. I wonder if that's part of the messaging by and distrust of established parties. Maybe the different style of messaging from Polanski will help change attitudes.
But as a comfortable middle class couple with a combined income c£65k we can cope with a 1% tax rise. Struggling to find sympathy for anyone with with millions asked to pay the same. We need to make "wealth" work in society's wider interests.
If I had a business that was worth millions on paper but losing money I'd be rushing to sell some of it and smile as I handed a tiny part of it to the state.
There's still a place for NI, Poly, it's jsut that I'd like to see meaningful wealth taxes as a mjor sourceof government revenus too. One financial adviser I work with gets visibly annoyed with me when I refuse to "optimise" using legal mechanisms because I consider them immoral. I'm doing absolutely nothing to optimise inheritance for example; the French state will get some pay back for what it's provided me with when I die.
The British government is missing out on a potentially huge source of revenue with it's lax rules on inheritance tax. Again one of those taxes the middle income groups pay. I'd ban trusts for a start, the use I've seen among people I know in the UK is to make the state pay for end of life care while the person's weath sits in a trust. If people want to give away money to make themselves so poor the state picks up their bills then make sure tax is paid on the money they give away.
I think it’s also dangerous to compare Norway to the UK - they are quite open about tax and it’s culturally seen as everyone’s responsibility to pay it whereas the Uk it seems people who find ways to dodge think themselves clever, and perhaps because services are not at Norwegian level people resent paying! However even there many wealthy Norwegians don’t like it and try to move to low tax states!
If your argument is that it won't work because people in the UK don't like to pay tax then I guess I can't really argue with that.
Funny you should mention people leaving Norway to avoid the tax. It absolutely happens and is a big driver for the sentiment that Norway should move further away from the EU, given that it is the EU's free movement of capital that allows people to move out of Norway but retain their ownership of Norwegian assets.
It's not a coincidence that the removal of wealth taxes across EU countries all happened after the free movement of capital rules were introduced. It's almost like a race to the bottom was part of the plan and it wasn't the reason we were given that wealth taxes are difficult to administer.
I mentioned it on the Brexit benefits thread, but this is one problem the UK currently doesn't have since it's not bound by the free movement of capital rules.
What the EU should really be doing is introducing an EU wealth tax but that's a discussion for another thread.
And I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think someone with a not particularly profitable business, can easily borrow against that business to pay their personal tax. In many cases the sound financial decision would be to liquidate the business - screw the employees and enjoy your money whilst paying a little bit of wealth tax. That’s probably what every farmer, haulier, coach hire business in the country should do.
How many people with a combined wealth of over £10 million have nothing they can borrow against?
I don’t think anyone knows. There are no published criteria for which assets are in / out (is my private pension which I am unable to touch included? If not does it get included at 57 when I could access it or 65 when the pension company think I’m going to access it? How are companies with non-listed shares to be valued - many a start up has a paper valuation of millions with near zero revenue. Art, antiques, cars, etc? Houses - at the price I paid or some notional value someone thinks it is worth now? Any discount for your main home (like Norway)? But does that apply only to the house or can I include my whole country estate? Does the farmer behind me who has been trying to get planning permission on his field to build 200 houses pay on its agricultural value (six figures) or the value if it gets permission (at least seven figures)? Is it MY assets or my wife and mine combined? By distributing assets to wife and children are we really talking about a £40M net worth? If it’s just my share of the assets (which seems logical) then my ability to borrow against any of them will be limited by the other party (ie my wife would need to consent to borrowing on our house etc). On the other hand the “comfort” that comes from both a couple both sitting rich is different from an individual with the same personal wealth as one of them.
But why £10M and 1% those are just convenient numbers which sound like a lot and not much to typical voters so don’t affect them and surely the “wealthy” can afford it. A different party says it should be 2% and paid by the top 10% of people (which someone suggested is around £3M).
im not saying they are living in poverty - that’s a typical STW reframe the argument to say something I didn’t bullshit. They are likely living within their means but could suddenly have their means changed with the only way so solve that being to sell assets - potentially at less that their HMRC valuation.I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people with that kind of net worth are effectively living in poverty since none of their assets are liquid and can't figure out any way to raise the money for a wealth tax.
there’s a huge number of SMEs in the UK scraping by, employing large numbers of people and not making their owners rich (at least in the short term) but which have paper valuations far higher than their balance sheets would suggest. When their owners do anything that turns those assets into cash, they pay income or capital gains tax on the transactions. In fact to pay a wealth tax bill somewhere along the line it’s likely the money used has already been taxed once.If the only way to pay the tax is liquidate the business then it sounds like the business was going to be liquidated anyway. At least in this way the liquidation can be used to pay off the tax they owe.
Like I say if the conversation is can we get rid of council tax and make it asset based then I could probably get behind that. That doesn’t seem to be the proposition though. If it was going to remove (or massively reduce) employers NI I could probably also rationalise if, but it appears to be a “those people look rich so they should pay” approach. I’ve no issue with taxing the rich, but all the evidence from UK tax is the very rich are remarkably good at manipulating their affairs to minimise tax and the very poor pay very little so the tax burden falls to people in the middle who’s bill is big, but not big enough to justify professional strategies to dodge tax. Wherever you set the limit there will always be people who fall into the oh I didn’t think about them, or who surprise you by just being under the threshold - that’s why I’d actually say it’s better to tax everyone on wealth if that is what you are going to do. It makes everyone have a vested interest in the “rules” on pensions/property etc being fair. I guess my main objection is an arbitrary 10M cut off there are probably some people who have a legitimate “FFS” I dont actually have 10M of assets sloshing around to just write cheques to HMRC whilst there will be people with 2/3/5M of assets who could very easily afford to pay. If you’ve got 10M of assets “tied up” you are probably already paying many other taxes, whilst if you are a pensioner with 2 or 3M you may be paying relatively little whilst sitting on your nest egg.
that’s the problem - you can’t usually sell “part of” a business (especially a loss making one) easily - you can’t usually raise investment which goes into the company (and often then increases the value of the company making your paper assets greater!). There is a cottage industry arguing with HMRC over the value of employee share options for this reason (on income tax). It probably makes accountancy practices more money than employees! However the well rehearsed arguments there won’t stack up so well for actual owners.If I had a business that was worth millions on paper but losing money I'd be rushing to sell some of it and smile as I handed a tiny part of it to the state.
we are 100% in agreement - but a quick look at Baroness Mone’s “not my assets” argument is a clue that it would be exactly the same with wealth trusts!The British government is missing out on a potentially huge source of revenue with it's lax rules on inheritance tax. Again one of those taxes the middle income groups pay. I'd ban trusts for a start, the use I've seen among people I know in the UK is to make the state pay for end of life care while the person's weath sits in a trust. If people want to give away money to make themselves so poor the state picks up their bills then make sure tax is paid on the money they give away.
But why £10M and 1% those are just convenient numbers which sound like a lot and not much to typical voters so don’t affect them and surely the “wealthy” can afford it. A different party says it should be 2% and paid by the top 10% of people (which someone suggested is around £3M).
In the paragraph prior to the one quoted you seem to make the case against wealth tax by listing a seemingly endless range of edge cases to 'prove' that it is a bad idea in principle. And then you criticise us for pulling convenient numbers out our bums?
We are not going to create a fully fleshed out wealth tax plan, including implementation and enforcement, here on this thread.
What we are discussing is the principle of wealth tax. So far your main argument against the principle of wealth tax is people in the UK won't like it. I'm sure they won't. If you have other arguments against the principle of wealth taxes that I missed then I'm quite happy to listen.
However, in general people who own a lot of wealth, even if that wealth is on paper, have the capability to pay a wealth tax.
Please don't now try to give me an example of people who own(ed?) £10 million in Equity for Punks Brewdog shares.
Funny you should mention people leaving Norway to avoid the tax. It absolutely happens and is a big driver for the sentiment that Norway should move further away from the EU, given that it is the EU's free movement of capital that allows people to move out of Norway but retain their ownership of Norwegian assets.
It's not a coincidence that the removal of wealth taxes across EU countries all happened after the free movement of capital rules were introduced. It's almost like a race to the bottom was part of the plan and it wasn't the reason we were given that wealth taxes are difficult to administer.
I mentioned it on the Brexit benefits thread, but this is one problem the UK currently doesn't have since it's not bound by the free movement of capital rules.
Yeah so the party getting the most traction on a wealth tax is also one of the parties most vocally arguing to rejoin the EU! What you are telling me is those two policies are probably somewhat incompatible.
Yeah so the party getting the most traction on a wealth tax is also one of the parties most vocally arguing to rejoin the EU! What you are telling me is those two policies are probably somewhat incompatible.
As far as Norway and the EU is concerned, I'm of the opinion Norway should shit or get off the pot (ie, become full members or move further away). But that decision is going to depend on how the EU lands on EU wide wealth tax. See this proposal:
If the EU doesn't address the race to the bottom then Norway (and the UK) are better off outside the EU.
So in some ways it's incompatible but I don't see the current situation continuing into the future.
How about putting up VAT on high-value luxury goods to 30%?
IMHO I don’t think it would work in the same way that trickle down doesn’t work,the rich don’t necessarily spend that much of the total wealth they accumulate on trinkets.
They literally posses more money than they can spend.
@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."
Part of the problem in this country is people equating top 1% income with top 1% wealth.
A top-1% income can make you quite comfortable, but it's not enough to buy a 4-bed detached house in some parts of the country. To earn that salary you have to actually go out and work for it, and you then get taxed at almost 50% for the privilege.
Whereas someone with a net worth of £3.1m can just sit around in their plush house doing nothing and watch as their net worth grows by more than £160k in an average year, while paying no tax on it at all.
It's all arse backwards. Work should be taxed less, assets more.
Its by design 🙂
Okay... if the gossip is true, and the few good things Starmer has said/done in the last year are so are down to the cabinet grouping around Ed Miliband to force the PM's hand against his own judgement (the latest being not-supporting USA strikes on Iran)... I think it's time to call it... despite the obvious noise the press and opponents will make about him being "rejected by the voters" and having "had his chance"... it's time Labour asked Miliband to take the leader's role, at least initially. A chance to reset international policy away from one that sees the UK as the "Trump Whisperer". A chance to double down on the green energy transition rather than keep watering it down. A chance to consider the younger generations at least as much as the older ones when setting out spending priorities, economic policies, and regulations. Time to make the privatisation (or mutualisation) of the water companies the next step towards taking back control.
Doesnt look like the Greens are the answer to Reform in every election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lvp9vk5ro
You really can't read much into a ward bye-election, but good to see a hard working councillor get her seat back. It's depressing just how much support there is for Reform in the NE though. Let's hope that's beginning to turn, as they're exposed to actual work.
Okay... if the gossip is true, and the few good things Starmer has said/done in the last year are so are down to the cabinet grouping around Ed Miliband to force the PM's hand against his own judgement (the latest being not-supporting USA strikes on Iran)... I think it's time to call it... despite the obvious noise the press and opponents will make about him being "rejected by the voters" and having "had his chance"... it's time Labour asked Miliband to take the leader's role, at least initially. A chance to reset international policy away from one that sees the UK as the "Trump Whisperer". A chance to double down on the green energy transition rather than keep watering it down. A chance to consider the younger generations at least as much as the older ones when setting out spending priorities, economic policies, and regulations. Time to make the privatisation (or mutualisation) of the water companies the next step towards taking back control.
Let's wait till we are not close to WW3 and/or another economic collapse before destabilising the government!
Okay... if the gossip is true, and the few good things Starmer has said/done in the last year are so are down to the cabinet grouping around Ed Miliband to force the PM's hand against his own judgement (the latest being not-supporting USA strikes on Iran)... I think it's time to call it...
Where does such gossip come from? People who seed ideas like that are often working to their own agenda - if not Ed himself then others with leadership aspirations. It seems unlikely to me that Keir the lawyer was ever keen to ignore International Law, but having worked with a lot of lawyers the do sometimes like to play devils advocate and spell out all the options and consider all the scenarios even although the end conclusion may be obvious. Someone whose decisions are based on strong moral feelings rather than rational analysis may think they are indecisive or even encouraging the alternative scenario.
Where does such gossip come from?
Tim Shipman. Amongst others.
It seems unlikely to me that Keir the lawyer was ever keen to ignore International Law
That seems a rather simplistic view of lawyers. Whilst not ignore there are plenty who will find you a handy loophole in the law or a counter to it depending which side you are paying for.
In terms of who leaked this story its pretty ambiguous really when you consider what happened.
Starmer wanted to allow the USA an offensive "defence" option aka to carry out attacks on Iran but only to destroy their ability to counter attack other nations.
This was blocked initially but was then reversed.
Question is was it right to be reversed?
If you think the answer is clearly yes then it makes sense to conclude it was Starmers team who leaked it to try and show he was right all along (the newsagent podcast sort of brought into this for example ending up blaming Milliband for Obamas failure to take action on Syria which seemed a bit of a leap of faith).
If you think the answer is clearly no then it makes sense to conclude Milliband or one of the others leaked it.
Yeah this stuff is normally framed as Miliband being a malignant force in the cabinet by those reporting it in rags like the Spectator. It leaves me thinking I’m glad he’s in there.
tim shipman wasn’t at the meeting - so where did he get his gossip from? And what did the person who leaked it to him (or invented or embellished it) stand to gain?Where does such gossip come from?
Tim Shipman. Amongst others.
Depending how cynical you want to be I can all sorts of different reasons for it to be leaked and who to.
their job isn’t really to tell you what to do it’s to present the options so you can decide. That sometimes means they present an alternative position as devils advocate, it doesn’t mean they are actually keen to do it.It seems unlikely to me that Keir the lawyer was ever keen to ignore International Law
That seems a rather simplistic view of lawyers. Whilst not ignore there are plenty who will find you a handy loophole in the law or a counter to it depending which side you are paying for.
that’s the narrative that’s being told, we don’t know if that’s being spun by pro-Starmer people, pro-Ed people, pro-Trump people who want Starmer out the way, pro-Israel people, or just anti-Labour people who want to show the party is in chaos.In terms of who leaked this story its pretty ambiguous really when you consider what happened.
Starmer wanted to allow the USA an offensive "defence" option aka to carry out attacks on Iran but only to destroy their ability to counter attack other nations.
or the subtelty of what’s a proactive defensive position changed when Irans tactics became clear.This was blocked initially but was then reversed.Question is was it right to be reversed?
except that if you want to say you were right and were overruled, as PM, that makes you look weak.If you think the answer is clearly yes then it makes sense to conclude it was Starmers team who leaked it to try and show he was right all along (the newsagent podcast sort of brought into this for example ending up blaming Milliband for Obamas failure to take action on Syria which seemed a bit of a leap of faith).
If you think the answer is clearly no then it makes sense to conclude Milliband or one of the others leaked it.
But it is also possible that it WAS the right decision at both points in time. Preemptively it would have been wrong, but once neighbouring countries were under attack the seesaw shifts.
Of course it might all be a ruse to try and pretend to trump that Keir likes him, and just got shouted down. Buttering up Trump is horrible but might actually be necessary to try and avoid escalation.
Siding with Trump over military intervention in Iran will result in escalation.
Anyway, I stand by my initial statement… time for Labour to push Starmer aside, and in my opinion Miliband should be put in place, ASAP, even if he’s only an interim leader. Not just to avoid us making the mistake of being dragged into full participation in Trump’s pointless dangerous war, but also to get the party back to delivering at pace on energy, water, child poverty, opportunities for young people etc.