I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
The UK and the US government's are propped up by very wealthy businesses and individuals. Those turkeys will always be safe from Christmas all the while they keep donating
For me I don't like the idea of overly penalising people for being successful. I also hear a lot of empathy for Gary. The wage suppression in this country is atrocious and the hoovering up of private assets is counter productive. The way national assets like utilities were privatised isnt so awful but what is unforgiveable is how they have been allowed to run. Zero accountability, tax money propping rail franchises that own fuck all assets up, the entire water industry particularly. Less so with power, telecoms and gas but for some reason water companies have been allowed to ignore targets for asset management and maintenance, pay shareholders huge dividends and we are all a part of that. Any large pension fund will have stakes in privatised national utility assets, its a no brainer, you get a dividend regardless of poor performance, dip your bread. That sort of corruption should carry jail sentences for the ministers who were meant to be holding these dickheads to account and the board members. Same for the train franchises.
The thing to remember as well. It was only 5 years ago people in my industry were all of a sudden being appreciated, delivery drivers were heroes, doctors and nurses rightly so and the care workers who do such a noble job but are so disrespectfully financially rewarded. I said at the time when all that was over we woukd be forgotten about and left underpaid and we have been.
I couldn't care less for whataboutism and that prick starmer with his squaky voice "14 years" yeah the conservatives were shit, they also inherited a mess and thankfully eventually shup up about it. They also paid people a fuck ton of money to sit at home for months on end when they weren't stealing from us fraudulently procuring protective equipment.
The Gary's economics big push is to try and level up things for the crucial but underpaid and appreciated workers who 2 generations ago could afford to run a modest home and have a holiday from driving a bus, being a postman, owning a shop. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur nor would that work, entrepreneurs still need people to drive trains, buses, deliver shit anyway. Difference is those people now often claim benefits whilst in full-time employment which is mental. And means they are not being paid enough.
Anyway the younger generation will eventually catch up. If I was 18 years old now I'd hope I was 2 years into a plumbing, bricklaying or electricians apprenticeship eying up which Aston Martin I want. Construction and trades are industries where AI isnt going to disrupt
Fuck me you have come a long way from posting about taking pictures of your dumps, or did you write this while taking one
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
If poor people can't feed their kids, they sell the tele.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
If poor people can't feed their kids, they sell the tele.
Not at my wife’s school they don’t, they just send them in hungry.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
I genuinely not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or your life is just so far from the reality for most people that you cant identify with it.
Either way I've just found out one of my best mates from school has days maybe a couple weeks to live. I'll reply when I get my head straight.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
I genuinely not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or your life is just so far from the reality for most people that you cant identify with it.
Either way I've just found out one of my best mates from school has days maybe a couple weeks to live. I'll reply when I get my head straight.
Really sorry to hear that canters,
I fully understand I’m in a privileged position, but many on here will attest that I’m fully aware of the reality in which we live and do all I can within my ability to help those less fortunate than myself.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
I genuinely not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or your life is just so far from the reality for most people that you cant identify with it.
Either way I've just found out one of my best mates from school has days maybe a couple weeks to live. I'll reply when I get my head straight.
Really sorry to hear that canters,
I fully understand I’m in a privileged position, but many on here will attest that I’m fully aware of the reality in which we live and do all I can within my ability to help those less fortunate than myself.
Apologies. My last comment was not fair. Heads completely spinning.
My overarching point is - you say kids are going to school hungry (stats say up to 20% of kids in the UK are skipping meals). The 2 biggest determinants of life outcomes for a kid are 3 meals a day and a parent who reads to them at least 4 times a week. We aren't gonna grow ourselves out of this problem. We are only gonna set ourselves up for another generation of low productivity and low growth if we allow this to continue. We have to solve these problems to give us the foundation for growth. Until then even thinking about growth is pointless. This is just one example it's like this across society. These problems have to be solved first otherwise you're chasing your tail. We need to lift people out of poverty, improve health, education outcomes, create more opportunity for these people, solve the low pay problems (this involves tackling the power of big business), build infrastructure and much more. Then we will have the foundation for growth. Until those things happen we are dreaming if we ever think growth will happen.
To give a football analogy. A club cannot grow (get promoted, more fans more revenue etc.) Unless the foundations are in place. You need the right medical setup, sports science, analysis, scouting, academy, facilities, coaches, commercial etc.etc. if a club said we're gonna go for promotion and fill the ground and then build the right setup it would be laughable. As Duchatelet showed us, gutting all those things only leads in one direction.
For 15 years the poor, mostly working poor due to the low pay problem we have in the UK, have been clobbered by austerity taking the brunt of everything. The middle classes and SME's have taken the tax hit (see Henry's discussion on the investments thread, this is where my wife and I fall). And large multi nationals and the ultra rich have come away much much better off. You can argue about where the ultra rich threshold starts - I've said £10m is wrong and that there is a proposal for £50m. If you want to argue its much higher than that then thats fine. Maybe £100-200m+ is more the people we need to target. But if you want to encourage starting businesses you need to shift the tax burden from SMEs and the middle classes to large multinationals and the ultra rich.
An example. My brother in law runs a small building company doing luxury barn conversions and top end bespoke new builds (and similar). He worked out that proportionally his company paid 3 times more tax than Wilmot Dixon the massive national builder. He's getting clobbered, can barely compete with the big players as their margins are effectively larger by being able to pay tax lawyers and accountants to avoid tax.
@cantersaddick I agree with a lot there, but …… an awful lot of people are blaming the rich, especially the noisy one's with YouTube channels!! and that reverberates around the room, including this one.
I'm still to be convinced that trying to take money from one section, to this scale needed, will actually solve anything (or that it would even touch the sides), it may actually worsen the situation longer term. Even if we could and it does solve it, it'll be a temporary solution and yet another sticky plaster, unless the underlying issues are resolved we'll be here again in less than 10 years time. We have to deal with the proximate cause and to do so is multi faceted and sadly I fear beyond the ability of any government in the past and probably near future.
im not the expert as you can tell, but I still believe the solution is growth, without that we’re not getting out of the sticky stuff.
i don’t think there are any short term fixes, it there certainly needs to be some long ones, at best I’ve probably got 35 years left, I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
You are right about believing myths though…… remember the economist Gary and the Duke of Westminster…..? 😉
Again I think you're maybe taking a few bits personally and projecting. Saying there is a problem with wealth inequality isn't blaming them.
Again great to talk about growth but thats not gonna happen until we solve the societal problems.
As for your last point. I never agreed with that point. I said his overall narrative of how wee are where we are is bang on. Also this coming from the guy who believes the wealth will magically trickle down, even after the last 50 years! I choose to reply to that in meme form.
Ah yer, no one on here or anywhere has ever blamed the rich :-) or do I need to quote those posts and link more videos? You couldn't have agreed with that point as you denied he'd ever said it, it was a myth wasn't it (which was my point, not that you agreed).
Time will tell which way this will all land. As for your horse and sparrow theory I don't recall ever stating I agreed with that. Although some may argue 62% of taxes paid by the top 10% is a bit bigger than a trickle.
Trickle down has not really been seen to any degree since Thatcher, aside from about a week of Truss but I can see little signs already from Reeves.
I think you know when someone's run out of steam when the meme's start coming out......
Back on topic - if we removed cash completely - would that help raise more taxes? And how many barber shops would remain open :-)
Again sounds like projection. Saying there is a problem with the ultra rich and what they are able to get away with doing, and that something needs to be done to address it is not blaming them.
In the videos I'd seen of him talking about the DoW all I'd seen is him talking about IHT only. You shared one where he does say more (though not quite what you were claiming he said either) and I accepted that. Still doesn't mean he is blaming the rich more just pointing out the difference in the way the system treats people with masses of wealth and the opportunities open to them.
Cn you provide a source for the stat in bold? Looks to me on a quick Google to be referring to income tax which of course is a massive red herring and the top 10% of income tax payers are a completely different cohort of people to the ones we are talking about.
Every argument you have given stems from trickle down, you've talked about wealth creators and job creators. Trickle down has formed the basis of economic thinking across the west for 70 years. Yes some governments and budgets have been harder lined on it than others. But we've had 50 years of privatisation, deregulation and tax breaks for big business. Yes some like Truss wanted to double down on it but it's been the basis of every government for the entire period. Yes even this government, its why they've quietly u-turned on their manifesto pledge to close the tax break for large private equity. Its everywhere and its failed economics. The UK and US are the ones who still take this so religiously. Other countries have relaxed on it. Its why I get so frustrated that our political and economic media coverage is so UK US focused.
As for the memes. It was a light hearted way to reply to your dig at me!
Re bold, yes I meant income tax, although if you went all taxes then it would be higher I suspect. You do know the top 10% will include the very very richest in this country, or are you back in the Gary school that they don't pay income tax? You could take the top 1% and 30% in income tax.
I've not given one argument for trickle down economics, unless you are saying having or encouraging people to start successful businesses is trickle down.
Maybe not explicitly but every argument you've given is deeply rooted in that thinking.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Not explicitly, not at all. If you think helping (which doesn't have to be just tax breaks!) people set up businesses is trickle down then we are in different countries let alone different ball parks. How is that economic policy favoring the upper section of society? Where have I suggested big business, the billionaires etc should get breaks or pay less tax to enable them to trickle down. Was it my suggestion of two extra income tax bands that made you think that, or maybe it was my suggestion of bringing in line CGT etc to the proper tax bands so that investment income is taxed at peoples rate?
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%). Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) , Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013) State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
I genuinely not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or your life is just so far from the reality for most people that you cant identify with it.
Either way I've just found out one of my best mates from school has days maybe a couple weeks to live. I'll reply when I get my head straight.
Really sorry to hear that canters,
I fully understand I’m in a privileged position, but many on here will attest that I’m fully aware of the reality in which we live and do all I can within my ability to help those less fortunate than myself.
Apologies. My last comment was not fair. Heads completely spinning.
My overarching point is - you say kids are going to school hungry (stats say up to 20% of kids in the UK are skipping meals). The 2 biggest determinants of life outcomes for a kid are 3 meals a day and a parent who reads to them at least 4 times a week. We aren't gonna grow ourselves out of this problem. We are only gonna set ourselves up for another generation of low productivity and low growth if we allow this to continue. We have to solve these problems to give us the foundation for growth. Until then even thinking about growth is pointless. This is just one example it's like this across society. These problems have to be solved first otherwise you're chasing your tail. We need to lift people out of poverty, improve health, education outcomes, create more opportunity for these people, solve the low pay problems (this involves tackling the power of big business), build infrastructure and much more. Then we will have the foundation for growth. Until those things happen we are dreaming if we ever think growth will happen.
To give a football analogy. A club cannot grow (get promoted, more fans more revenue etc.) Unless the foundations are in place. You need the right medical setup, sports science, analysis, scouting, academy, facilities, coaches, commercial etc.etc. if a club said we're gonna go for promotion and fill the ground and then build the right setup it would be laughable. As Duchatelet showed us, gutting all those things only leads in one direction.
For 15 years the poor, mostly working poor due to the low pay problem we have in the UK, have been clobbered by austerity taking the brunt of everything. The middle classes and SME's have taken the tax hit (see Henry's discussion on the investments thread, this is where my wife and I fall). And large multi nationals and the ultra rich have come away much much better off. You can argue about where the ultra rich threshold starts - I've said £10m is wrong and that there is a proposal for £50m. If you want to argue its much higher than that then thats fine. Maybe £100-200m+ is more the people we need to target. But if you want to encourage starting businesses you need to shift the tax burden from SMEs and the middle classes to large multinationals and the ultra rich.
An example. My brother in law runs a small building company doing luxury barn conversions and top end bespoke new builds (and similar). He worked out that proportionally his company paid 3 times more tax than Wilmot Dixon the massive national builder. He's getting clobbered, can barely compete with the big players as their margins are effectively larger by being able to pay tax lawyers and accountants to avoid tax.
I agree with most of that, I think where we differ is I don't believe we can solve the problems you highlight without the growth, but fully understand the difficulty that brings.
Having a wife for the last 15 years working in a deprived inner London school I hope I would know and understand (my wallet does!) the difficulties faced. I was also a Chair of Governors at the same school for over 10 years. Hence why i've made reference in my posts to education (not academic and not necessarily just the pupils!).
Using your football analogy, I agree - however if the club has no money, how can they get the medical setup, sports science, analysis, scouting, academy, facilities, coaches, commercial etc that is needed? Short answer is they can't, unless they get that money to do so.
I'd hope some of the figures in my more recent posts highlights the gravity of the issue, despite huge growth in tax receipts, we have not moved forward, but backwards we now can't cope despite the doubling of income. there are so many reasons for that, but ultimately I still come back to, to solve these problems in the short term would take so much money it's impossible unless we achieve growth. if you moved a wealth tax to above £100m for instance it'd probably need to be 20% each and every year for at least 10 years, that's simply not mathematically achievable.
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I certainly did a double take when I saw that. Then I thought, something's not quite right there, so I looked it up.
The first problem, but by no means the most important as sourcing can trip us all up, is that your 2010 figure seems to be wrong. Perplexity AI tells me that it was £541 bn, tho' it agrees with your 858bn. In both cases it used gov.uk figures. Still a dramatic amount of money if you just consider the raw figure. But it misses out a massive piece of context. GDP growth in that period. If an economy grows, the tax take grows with it.
A better way to compare would be the figure for tax revenue as a % of GDP. It was 36.7% in the 2010/11 tax year. In 2023/24 tax year it was 36.9%. It is forecast to increase to 37.7% by 27/28. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies,"If this happens, it will represent the highest level of tax ever seen in the UK. While this would be high by historical standards, the UK would continue to have middling levels of taxation by international standards."
As for your scepticism about wealth tax you place great score by those abandoning it, although so far only a country with a population the same size as Leicester has been quoted. If you would just read the Sandbu article you would see that two who keep on with it are Norway and Switzerland. As far as I know of them (and I have two good friends who are from or currently live in one of those two) both are generally quite well run countries with high levels of public support and lower levels of inequality than the UK.
Sandbu agrees with your calculation of what a wealth tax would bring
"Recurrent wealth taxes take in 1.5 per cent of GDP in Switzerland, and 5 to 6 per cent of total tax revenue. In Norway, the rates are about 0.6 and 1.5 per cent, respectively. If a wealth tax in the UK took in similar percentages, it could raise between £20bn and £45bn."
But unlike you, he thinks that sort of money each year is well worth having. He also notes that some of those most loudly clearing off as a result of the non-dom tax change have cleared off to ...Switzerland🤣
I have no problem agreeing with you that governments - all of them - spend tax money inefficiently, and this needs always to be improved. I also agree that growth is the key. Well if you could send your ideas for how to stimulate this growth to the Right. Hon. Rachel Reeves MP, she will be delighted to consider them. After all that was key to their election programme but they didn't map out their growth plans in enough detail before the election, and now they are screwed. For me the obvious route to growth is major infrastructure projects, but there isn't the ready money, and more borrowing, especially at today's rates, is risky. Any better concrete ideas?
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
Maybe asking the obvious but does a 10% wealth tax not mean that all the wealth is gone after about 18 years?
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I'd go for a drink and chat with Canters and Rob. This has been good stuff. Hats off.
Who’s paying and what with?
Me, with bitcoin...
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
I will let you into a little secret - I don't really know what bitcoin is...
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
Maybe asking the obvious but does a 10% wealth tax not mean that all the wealth is gone after about 18 years?
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I certainly did a double take when I saw that. Then I thought, something's not quite right there, so I looked it up.
The first problem, but by no means the most important as sourcing can trip us all up, is that your 2010 figure seems to be wrong. Perplexity AI tells me that it was £541 bn, tho' it agrees with your 858bn. In both cases it used gov.uk figures. Still a dramatic amount of money if you just consider the raw figure. But it misses out a massive piece of context. GDP growth in that period. If an economy grows, the tax take grows with it.
A better way to compare would be the figure for tax revenue as a % of GDP. It was 36.7% in the 2010/11 tax year. In 2023/24 tax year it was 36.9%. It is forecast to increase to 37.7% by 27/28. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies,"If this happens, it will represent the highest level of tax ever seen in the UK. While this would be high by historical standards, the UK would continue to have middling levels of taxation by international standards."
As for your scepticism about wealth tax you place great score by those abandoning it, although so far only a country with a population the same size as Leicester has been quoted. If you would just read the Sandbu article you would see that two who keep on with it are Norway and Switzerland. As far as I know of them (and I have two good friends who are from or currently live in one of those two) both are generally quite well run countries with high levels of public support and lower levels of inequality than the UK.
Sandbu agrees with your calculation of what a wealth tax would bring
"Recurrent wealth taxes take in 1.5 per cent of GDP in Switzerland, and 5 to 6 per cent of total tax revenue. In Norway, the rates are about 0.6 and 1.5 per cent, respectively. If a wealth tax in the UK took in similar percentages, it could raise between £20bn and £45bn."
But unlike you, he thinks that sort of money each year is well worth having. He also notes that some of those most loudly clearing off as a result of the non-dom tax change have cleared off to ...Switzerland🤣
I have no problem agreeing with you that governments - all of them - spend tax money inefficiently, and this needs always to be improved. I also agree that growth is the key. Well if you could send your ideas for how to stimulate this growth to the Right. Hon. Rachel Reeves MP, she will be delighted to consider them. After all that was key to their election programme but they didn't map out their growth plans in enough detail before the election, and now they are screwed. For me the obvious route to growth is major infrastructure projects, but there isn't the ready money, and more borrowing, especially at today's rates, is risky. Any better concrete ideas?
It was an HMRC .GOV website on my mobile on the train this morning 'HMRC tax receipts and National Insurance contributions for the UK'. I'm not sniffing at an extra 20bn (or 45bn) but it just simply will change very little, without growth it'll be eaten up in a year and won't then be noticed year two onwards.
Same size as Leicester? What about Italy, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden - all a little bigger than Leicester's few hundred thousand!?
Sadly I don't have all (many!) of the answers on growth. Infrastructure is one, I think the Government Building homes (lots of them!) would be similar and could open up the doors to a lot of trade apprenticeships, attracting business to the UK and the Stock exchange. All a bit wooly I know, I bet at the overview than the ideas :-)
The compelling argument for a wealth tax (of some description) in the short term for the ‘super’ rich is simply they are the cohort who can swallow it without affecting their day to day lives if the nation really needs more revenue.
Whereas a further take from low and middle income earners will mean they are forced to spend less somewhere with the attendant impact on those businesses ie a likely drain to the economy as a whole.
But as others have said that alone does not solve the bigger issues of where we spend and what infrastructure projects would make sound investments.
The unknown is whether any neutral modelling can really predict if the super rich would really up sticks in that scenario and then how much revenue is potentially lost (or if indeed the revenue remains in tact because it isn’t all likely to shift overseas).
The immoral thing I struggle with and what I think irks more low and middle earners is the excessive rewards to senior management management/ the rich cohort who earn many multiples of the lowest in their businesses which really aren’t justifiable.
Whilst it may not mean everyone can earn a lot more the sense of inequality is huge and means those in the privileged roles lose sight of what life is like for their employees and customers.
The perception of unfairness it creates is significant.
Just because a business can afford to massively reward the top rung is not a reason to do so when a small rise for the bottom rung has a bigger personal impact.
Simplistic I know. But currently the perception of inequality and the gap between the haves and have nots is seemingly an issue generally and fueling discontent. The reward for footballers is an example.
Increased taxes at the very top whether it be ultra wealthy individuals or large businesses can also create an incentive to reinvest money back into businesses as R&D, capital investment etc. rather than take it out as profit. Wouldn't be bad for growth a bit of that.
I thoroughly agree with your post above. The demand for a wealth tax is very much driven by those you mention, and not surprising because their net incomes have been stagnant since 2008, and they and their kids cannot afford the decent housing that I suspect most of us on this thread enjoy. And people wonder why then they are attracted to the snake-oil of the new far Right.
The principled proponents of a wealth tax do not suggest it is a panancea, but it would make it easier to make other changes which might affect a wider spectrum of the population.
The compelling argument for a wealth tax (of some description) in the short term for the ‘super’ rich is simply they are the cohort who can swallow it without affecting their day to day lives if the nation really needs more revenue.
Whereas a further take from low and middle income earners will mean they are forced to spend less somewhere with the attendant impact on those businesses ie a likely drain to the economy as a whole.
But as others have said that alone does not solve the bigger issues of where we spend and what infrastructure projects would make sound investments.
The unknown is whether any neutral modelling can really predict if the super rich would really up sticks in that scenario and then how much revenue is potentially lost (or if indeed the revenue remains in tact because it isn’t all likely to shift overseas).
The immoral thing I struggle with and what I think irks more low and middle earners is the excessive rewards to senior management management/ the rich cohort who earn many multiples of the lowest in their businesses which really aren’t justifiable.
Whilst it may not mean everyone can earn a lot more the sense of inequality is huge and means those in the privileged roles lose sight of what life is like for their employees and customers.
The perception of unfairness it creates is significant.
Just because a business can afford to massively reward the top rung is not a reason to do so when a small rise for the bottom rung has a bigger personal impact.
Simplistic I know. But currently the perception of inequality and the gap between the haves and have nots is seemingly an issue generally and fueling discontent. The reward for footballers is an example.
I’m in a business where there are some very very high earners, however I’ve never heard grumblings from the lower earners, but then at their level/experience they themselves are fairly well rewarded (to some extent I’d put myself in that bracket!).
I’ve never been too worried how much my boss earns, as that gives me something to aim for.
as long as it’s fair, or deemed fair most people are ok. we’ve had tougher times where the pot for pay reviews have been small or almost non existent, but we’ve tended to have a level of salary in those instances where above an amount receives no rise so that there’s more for the deemed lower earners.
The compelling argument for a wealth tax (of some description) in the short term for the ‘super’ rich is simply they are the cohort who can swallow it without affecting their day to day lives if the nation really needs more revenue.
Whereas a further take from low and middle income earners will mean they are forced to spend less somewhere with the attendant impact on those businesses ie a likely drain to the economy as a whole.
But as others have said that alone does not solve the bigger issues of where we spend and what infrastructure projects would make sound investments.
The unknown is whether any neutral modelling can really predict if the super rich would really up sticks in that scenario and then how much revenue is potentially lost (or if indeed the revenue remains in tact because it isn’t all likely to shift overseas).
The immoral thing I struggle with and what I think irks more low and middle earners is the excessive rewards to senior management management/ the rich cohort who earn many multiples of the lowest in their businesses which really aren’t justifiable.
Whilst it may not mean everyone can earn a lot more the sense of inequality is huge and means those in the privileged roles lose sight of what life is like for their employees and customers.
The perception of unfairness it creates is significant.
Just because a business can afford to massively reward the top rung is not a reason to do so when a small rise for the bottom rung has a bigger personal impact.
Simplistic I know. But currently the perception of inequality and the gap between the haves and have nots is seemingly an issue generally and fueling discontent. The reward for footballers is an example.
I’m in a business where there are some very very high earners, however I’ve never heard grumblings from the lower earners, but then at their level/experience they themselves are fairly well rewarded (to some extent I’d put myself in that bracket!).
I’ve never been too worried how much my boss earns, as that gives me something to aim for.
as long as it’s fair, or deemed fair most people are ok. we’ve had tougher times where the pot for pay reviews have been small or almost non existent, but we’ve tended to have a level of salary in those instances where above an amount receives no rise so that there’s more for the deemed lower earners.
I’m equally talking about the perception in the country generally and why people react to newspaper headlines that inevitably quote someone’s annual salary.
Take this week - the BBC issue their annual report and declare what the big cheeses get. The water companies issue hosepipe bans and we see reported what the management get paid.
This all fuels perception in the wider economy of haves and have nots.
You can always justify reward levels in isolation of course but sone levels so dwarf what the ‘average’ guy gets is where the moral argument comes in.
I’m simply saying this adds to the current se and fir a wealth tax as they are perceived (key word) as able to afford it when others cannot.
A wealth tax would have to be so complicated it would introduce various loopholes that would be exploited, making it effectively pointless.
The chancellor has reportedly said in meetings when prompted for a wealth tax “can you write how it would work down on this piece of paper?”. I think I agree with her.
Personally don’t agree with the principle of “we shouldn’t have billionaires” - we should have more, not less billionaires.
What we need is for those at the bottom to be paid properly. It can't be right that employers get away with paying the minimum they can get away with, then the state (taxpayer) has to top up with Universal Credit to provide enough for the employee to live on. This situation has to change.
A wealth tax would have to be so complicated it would introduce various loopholes that would be exploited, making it effectively pointless.
The chancellor has reportedly said in meetings when prompted for a wealth tax “can you write how it would work down on this piece of paper?”. I think I agree with her.
Personally don’t agree with the principle of “we shouldn’t have billionaires” - we should have more, not less billionaires.
On your middle point. That is avoidance from the government. Avoiding their policy responsibility. There are people and organisations working through working through details. But ultimately the government shouldn't be putting the responsibility if developing policy onto 3rd party organisations.
Keen to understand why you think your last point. More billionaires would be good why? A small number of people having so much more wealth than can be spent in hundreds of lifetimes. That wealth being held rather than flowing round the economy is a good thing? Often being held offshore, largely not paying tax, thats good? There's not one billionaire in the would without some question over the ethics of how they got there. Wanting an increase in middle classes and upper middle classes with some wealth I absolutely get. Wanting more billionaires is mind-blowing to me.
In economics MPC basically falls to zero after a couple hundred million in wealth which means the money is a drain on the economy rather than a boost. Whereas the MPC for the poorest is 100 I.e. for every pound they get they consume a pound. Which then gets spent again. That's the multiplier effect which causes growth. The growthbof this mega wealthy class is why the multiplier effect link has been broken. It's dangerous unprecedented ground for economics.
What we need is for those at the bottom to be paid properly. It can't be right that employers get away with paying the minimum they can get away with, then the state (taxpayer) has to top up with Universal Credit to provide enough for the employee to live on. This situation has to change.
This is the nub of the problem
I keep hearing that wages have caused inflation but I cannot see how. Wages of footballers, investment bankers etc will be skewing the data on that maybe.
This is also what generates the ire towards the 1% holding most of the wealth. Its my dirty hands that make the directors of my employers a lot of money. Same for retail staff (in the shops that actually make money like Asda, Tesco etc) essential staff like care workers whenever I see adverts for a carer role and equate it to the margins those who own care homes and private care companies make and whilst I don't want the government sticking their beaks in as frankly they will fuck it up and feather their own nests. In fact there are probably a lot of ministers on the boards of care providers.
I had a thought last night. The country could introduce a goodwill fund. Where contributers make a totally voluntary contribution of a minimum of £10 million and it funds the vanity projects the government want to do with renewable energy, diversity co-ordinators, housing fighting age men in premier inns. Those contributers can then put their money where their virtue signals are
Or it could be used to pay for bursaries for nurses, doctors, teachers, to train then fund an uplift in their pay.
Or it could be where the funding for pay uplifts for what we all acknowledged as essential workers 5 years ago, those that the county really cannot do without
Anyway loads, the point of this would be amazing, unparalleled good PR for big businesses, they would be allowed to display a crest like fairy liquid has to make us think the queen used to do the washing up with fairy liquid or Benson & Hedges to say the queen smoked their tabs.
"Amazon, proud supporters of the GB uplift fund since 2034 to the tune of £55 billion in 2031/32"
Or
"Tesco proudly pay way above the paltry living wage, come and work for us if you want to earn money"
It could be worn like a medal instead of the shady donations and non-exec board roles and bribes that aren't bribes but blatantly are really jobs for the boys type shit that has gone on since Cromwell.
I'd also pay politicians, MPs a lot more but on the strict proviso they are not allowed any board roles, advisor roles, consultancy roles and second jobs all the while they are a sitting MP. That would overnight sort the intentions of them out and a genuine statesman or woman woukd emerge who truly does have the best interests of the United kingdom and constituents in their heart. No newspaper columns either
A lot of people quite rightly woukd rather keep their financial business their business and fair enough. If the tax wasn't so suppressing on the working and lower middle classes people wouldn't get so angry about people doing stuff that isn't illegal just immoral with their taxes who are mega rich. I put the most i can afford into my pension to reduce my income tax exposure and all manner of things paid for at source to do the same.
Ultimately we are paying a substantial amount more than ever for much worse service and the people we elect to spend that money in the best way possible are fucking it up
What we need is for those at the bottom to be paid properly. It can't be right that employers get away with paying the minimum they can get away with, then the state (taxpayer) has to top up with Universal Credit to provide enough for the employee to live on. This situation has to change.
This is the nub of the problem
I keep hearing that wages have caused inflation but I cannot see how. Wages of footballers, investment bankers etc will be skewing the data on that maybe.
This is also what generates the ire towards the 1% holding most of the wealth. Its my dirty hands that make the directors of my employers a lot of money. Same for retail staff (in the shops that actually make money like Asda, Tesco etc) essential staff like care workers whenever I see adverts for a carer role and equate it to the margins those who own care homes and private care companies make and whilst I don't want the government sticking their beaks in as frankly they will fuck it up and feather their own nests. In fact there are probably a lot of ministers on the boards of care providers.
I had a thought last night. The country could introduce a goodwill fund. Where contributers make a totally voluntary contribution of a minimum of £10 million and it funds the vanity projects the government want to do with renewable energy, diversity co-ordinators, housing fighting age men in premier inns. Those contributers can then put their money where their virtue signals are
Or it could be used to pay for bursaries for nurses, doctors, teachers, to train then fund an uplift in their pay.
Or it could be where the funding for pay uplifts for what we all acknowledged as essential workers 5 years ago, those that the county really cannot do without
Anyway loads, the point of this would be amazing, unparalleled good PR for big businesses, they would be allowed to display a crest like fairy liquid has to make us think the queen used to do the washing up with fairy liquid or Benson & Hedges to say the queen smoked their tabs.
"Amazon, proud supporters of the GB uplift fund since 2034 to the tune of £55 billion in 2031/32"
Or
"Tesco proudly pay way above the paltry living wage, come and work for us if you want to earn money"
It could be worn like a medal instead of the shady donations and non-exec board roles and bribes that aren't bribes but blatantly are really jobs for the boys type shit that has gone on since Cromwell.
I'd also pay politicians, MPs a lot more but on the strict proviso they are not allowed any board roles, advisor roles, consultancy roles and second jobs all the while they are a sitting MP. That would overnight sort the intentions of them out and a genuine statesman or woman woukd emerge who truly does have the best interests of the United kingdom and constituents in their heart. No newspaper columns either
A lot of people quite rightly woukd rather keep their financial business their business and fair enough. If the tax wasn't so suppressing on the working and lower middle classes people wouldn't get so angry about people doing stuff that isn't illegal just immoral with their taxes who are mega rich. I put the most i can afford into my pension to reduce my income tax exposure and all manner of things paid for at source to do the same.
Ultimately we are paying a substantial amount more than ever for much worse service and the people we elect to spend that money in the best way possible are fucking it up
One aside. Renewable energy is not a vanity project. Even if you ignore the green/climate change/having a liveable planet bits. It is the fastest growing sector of the economy, the fastest growing employment sector the largest source of inward investment. By almost every metric its the most successful part of our economy at the moment. Anyone with half a brain would be doubling down on it and going hard to expand and get further growth and investment.
You're right about wages though. I keep saying it but if wages had grown with purchasing power since 1980 the average salary would be 85k. If the higher rate income tax threshold had increased with inflation since 1980 it would be 162k. We have a low pay problem. Largely because we have given too much power to large multinational corporations, deregulation and ineffective regulation of them. Its meant that when technological advances like the computer and the Internet have impacted work and improved efficiencies (and soon AI) the resulting gains have not been shared between shareholder and worker but 100% taken by shareholder. In fact it's actually worse than that as its allowed them to surpress wages over a 50 year period.
Comments
I think the Gary economics has good intentions, but he misunderstands an awful lot which surprises me. Getting a bit more tax in whilst will undoubtedly help (how can it not) is not going to move the dial of this countries issues, predominantly financial. Wherever it’s come from over the last 15 years an awful lot more tax is being collected.
in 2010 tax receipts (all taxes) were around 435bn, it’s now around double that with 858bn collected in the last full tax year. Hasn’t really helped has it? 420bn more…… let that sink in.
a wealth tax of 1-2% above ten million is suggested could raise 20bn, it’s really not going to move the dial, it’s the same as economic growth of a couple of %.
if we think that going to help solve this countries issues we’re all in for a shock. Like any issue, sort out the proximate cause and stop using more elastoplasts, sort out the fundamentals and the rest will to a degree sort itself.
I knew you were a secret billionaire 😉
If wealth tax of 1-2% will only raise £20 billion from those you mention, then it needs to be 10%. They still wouldn't miss it, or if somehow they do, they can reign in their spending the way the rest of us were told to.
Growth first we will fix services later and help people later (because it will trickle down) is literally the definition of trickle down whether or not you say the bit in brackets. Saying it's fine that some pay less tax because they are wealth creators and job creators is trickle down. I'm happy to quote all the places you've said these things.
Fuck me you have come a long way from posting about taking pictures of your dumps, or did you write this while taking one
How much better are our services since 2010 despite a doubling of tax income? How much have they improved despite £420bn more? Yet you want to believe that getting another 20/30 or even 50bn in tax revenue with a wealth tax will suddenly solve all these problems.
I think just about everyone will agree these things won't be fixed unless there is substantially more money to do so (although it's not just money that will fix that) and of course there are various ways that can be achieved.
I don't know if you do a tax return, but it's interesting to follow the lovely letter you get from HMRC as to where the tax (income & NI) money is going and how that has changed over time. Up to 4th in the table (which 10 years ago didn't even appear in the table) is:
11.1% goes on National Debt interest (as recent as 2021 that was less than 3%, in 2013 the last form I have it wasn't even on there so was sub 0.5%).
Welfare 21.6% (up 2.4% in 3 years, almost doubled since 2013) ,
Health 20.2% (actually down 1.5%, similar to 2013)
State pension 11.4% (up in the three years 1.6%, up from 6.1% in 2013)
So if you look at how not only have those %'s increased, but the sum of monies applied to those %'s you start to see where the money is going and the financial issues faced (not least over 10% servicing debt). Maybe everyone already knew on here that nearly two thirds of Income tax & Ni revenue (total collected about 500bn) goes on those costs, in 2013 we used to raise £260bn (so again has roughly doubled) so we are spending far more on those items than 12 years ago than we collected in NI/Income tax in it's entirety.
These costs are only ever increasing (generally) without growth every year we will go further backwards as we have done for decades as income won't keep up with the expenditure. A wealth tax, or even that with many other tax increases are not going to solve these problems in either the short or long term without growth.
I'm fairly sure someone with £20m in asset would miss £1m a year (to be fair I suspect a lot of people at that sort of level would not be able to fund the £1m easily without selling asset). £20m of asset doesn't mean you have a huge income or free capital, you could own a business valued at £20m that has very little spare capital. My mates recruitment consultancy firm a few years ago was valued at £34m, he'd have struggled to come up with £240k more let alone £2.4m each year. Therein lies one of the issues with Wealth Tax, a lot of wealth is paper wealth and not liquid. Probably why 8 countries have got rid of it in recent years.
Either way I've just found out one of my best mates from school has days maybe a couple weeks to live. I'll reply when I get my head straight.
I fully understand I’m in a privileged position, but many on here will attest that I’m fully aware of the reality in which we live and do all I can within my ability to help those less fortunate than myself.
My overarching point is - you say kids are going to school hungry (stats say up to 20% of kids in the UK are skipping meals). The 2 biggest determinants of life outcomes for a kid are 3 meals a day and a parent who reads to them at least 4 times a week. We aren't gonna grow ourselves out of this problem. We are only gonna set ourselves up for another generation of low productivity and low growth if we allow this to continue. We have to solve these problems to give us the foundation for growth. Until then even thinking about growth is pointless. This is just one example it's like this across society. These problems have to be solved first otherwise you're chasing your tail. We need to lift people out of poverty, improve health, education outcomes, create more opportunity for these people, solve the low pay problems (this involves tackling the power of big business), build infrastructure and much more. Then we will have the foundation for growth. Until those things happen we are dreaming if we ever think growth will happen.
To give a football analogy. A club cannot grow (get promoted, more fans more revenue etc.) Unless the foundations are in place. You need the right medical setup, sports science, analysis, scouting, academy, facilities, coaches, commercial etc.etc. if a club said we're gonna go for promotion and fill the ground and then build the right setup it would be laughable. As Duchatelet showed us, gutting all those things only leads in one direction.
For 15 years the poor, mostly working poor due to the low pay problem we have in the UK, have been clobbered by austerity taking the brunt of everything. The middle classes and SME's have taken the tax hit (see Henry's discussion on the investments thread, this is where my wife and I fall). And large multi nationals and the ultra rich have come away much much better off. You can argue about where the ultra rich threshold starts - I've said £10m is wrong and that there is a proposal for £50m. If you want to argue its much higher than that then thats fine. Maybe £100-200m+ is more the people we need to target. But if you want to encourage starting businesses you need to shift the tax burden from SMEs and the middle classes to large multinationals and the ultra rich.
An example. My brother in law runs a small building company doing luxury barn conversions and top end bespoke new builds (and similar). He worked out that proportionally his company paid 3 times more tax than Wilmot Dixon the massive national builder. He's getting clobbered, can barely compete with the big players as their margins are effectively larger by being able to pay tax lawyers and accountants to avoid tax.
Having a wife for the last 15 years working in a deprived inner London school I hope I would know and understand (my wallet does!) the difficulties faced. I was also a Chair of Governors at the same school for over 10 years. Hence why i've made reference in my posts to education (not academic and not necessarily just the pupils!).
Using your football analogy, I agree - however if the club has no money, how can they get the medical setup, sports science, analysis, scouting, academy, facilities, coaches, commercial etc that is needed? Short answer is they can't, unless they get that money to do so.
I'd hope some of the figures in my more recent posts highlights the gravity of the issue, despite huge growth in tax receipts, we have not moved forward, but backwards we now can't cope despite the doubling of income. there are so many reasons for that, but ultimately I still come back to, to solve these problems in the short term would take so much money it's impossible unless we achieve growth. if you moved a wealth tax to above £100m for instance it'd probably need to be 20% each and every year for at least 10 years, that's simply not mathematically achievable.
Maybe we could then get back on topic.
The first problem, but by no means the most important as sourcing can trip us all up, is that your 2010 figure seems to be wrong. Perplexity AI tells me that it was £541 bn, tho' it agrees with your 858bn. In both cases it used gov.uk figures. Still a dramatic amount of money if you just consider the raw figure. But it misses out a massive piece of context. GDP growth in that period. If an economy grows, the tax take grows with it.
A better way to compare would be the figure for tax revenue as a % of GDP. It was 36.7% in the 2010/11 tax year. In 2023/24 tax year it was 36.9%. It is forecast to increase to 37.7% by 27/28. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies,"If this happens, it will represent the highest level of tax ever seen in the UK. While this would be high by historical standards, the UK would continue to have middling levels of taxation by international standards."
As for your scepticism about wealth tax you place great score by those abandoning it, although so far only a country with a population the same size as Leicester has been quoted. If you would just read the Sandbu article you would see that two who keep on with it are Norway and Switzerland. As far as I know of them (and I have two good friends who are from or currently live in one of those two) both are generally quite well run countries with high levels of public support and lower levels of inequality than the UK.
Sandbu agrees with your calculation of what a wealth tax would bring
"Recurrent wealth taxes take in 1.5 per cent of GDP in Switzerland, and 5 to 6 per cent of total tax revenue. In Norway, the rates are about 0.6 and 1.5 per cent, respectively. If a wealth tax in the UK took in similar percentages, it could raise between £20bn and £45bn."
But unlike you, he thinks that sort of money each year is well worth having. He also notes that some of those most loudly clearing off as a result of the non-dom tax change have cleared off to ...Switzerland🤣
I have no problem agreeing with you that governments - all of them - spend tax money inefficiently, and this needs always to be improved. I also agree that growth is the key. Well if you could send your ideas for how to stimulate this growth to the Right. Hon. Rachel Reeves MP, she will be delighted to consider them. After all that was key to their election programme but they didn't map out their growth plans in enough detail before the election, and now they are screwed. For me the obvious route to growth is major infrastructure projects, but there isn't the ready money, and more borrowing, especially at today's rates, is risky. Any better concrete ideas?
What happens then?
Same size as Leicester? What about Italy, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden - all a little bigger than Leicester's few hundred thousand!?
Sadly I don't have all (many!) of the answers on growth. Infrastructure is one, I think the Government Building homes (lots of them!) would be similar and could open up the doors to a lot of trade apprenticeships, attracting business to the UK and the Stock exchange. All a bit wooly I know, I bet at the overview than the ideas :-)
I thoroughly agree with your post above. The demand for a wealth tax is very much driven by those you mention, and not surprising because their net incomes have been stagnant since 2008, and they and their kids cannot afford the decent housing that I suspect most of us on this thread enjoy. And people wonder why then they are attracted to the snake-oil of the new far Right.
The principled proponents of a wealth tax do not suggest it is a panancea, but it would make it easier to make other changes which might affect a wider spectrum of the population.
I’ve never been too worried how much my boss earns, as that gives me something to aim for.
as long as it’s fair, or deemed fair most people are ok.
we’ve had tougher times where the pot for pay reviews have been small or almost non existent, but we’ve tended to have a level of salary in those instances where above an amount receives no rise so that there’s more for the deemed lower earners.
Keen to understand why you think your last point. More billionaires would be good why? A small number of people having so much more wealth than can be spent in hundreds of lifetimes. That wealth being held rather than flowing round the economy is a good thing? Often being held offshore, largely not paying tax, thats good? There's not one billionaire in the would without some question over the ethics of how they got there. Wanting an increase in middle classes and upper middle classes with some wealth I absolutely get. Wanting more billionaires is mind-blowing to me.
In economics MPC basically falls to zero after a couple hundred million in wealth which means the money is a drain on the economy rather than a boost. Whereas the MPC for the poorest is 100 I.e. for every pound they get they consume a pound. Which then gets spent again. That's the multiplier effect which causes growth. The growthbof this mega wealthy class is why the multiplier effect link has been broken. It's dangerous unprecedented ground for economics.
I keep hearing that wages have caused inflation but I cannot see how. Wages of footballers, investment bankers etc will be skewing the data on that maybe.
This is also what generates the ire towards the 1% holding most of the wealth. Its my dirty hands that make the directors of my employers a lot of money. Same for retail staff (in the shops that actually make money like Asda, Tesco etc) essential staff like care workers whenever I see adverts for a carer role and equate it to the margins those who own care homes and private care companies make and whilst I don't want the government sticking their beaks in as frankly they will fuck it up and feather their own nests. In fact there are probably a lot of ministers on the boards of care providers.
I had a thought last night. The country could introduce a goodwill fund. Where contributers make a totally voluntary contribution of a minimum of £10 million and it funds the vanity projects the government want to do with renewable energy, diversity co-ordinators, housing fighting age men in premier inns. Those contributers can then put their money where their virtue signals are
Or it could be used to pay for bursaries for nurses, doctors, teachers, to train then fund an uplift in their pay.
Or it could be where the funding for pay uplifts for what we all acknowledged as essential workers 5 years ago, those that the county really cannot do without
Anyway loads, the point of this would be amazing, unparalleled good PR for big businesses, they would be allowed to display a crest like fairy liquid has to make us think the queen used to do the washing up with fairy liquid or Benson & Hedges to say the queen smoked their tabs.
"Amazon, proud supporters of the GB uplift fund since 2034 to the tune of £55 billion in 2031/32"
Or
"Tesco proudly pay way above the paltry living wage, come and work for us if you want to earn money"
It could be worn like a medal instead of the shady donations and non-exec board roles and bribes that aren't bribes but blatantly are really jobs for the boys type shit that has gone on since Cromwell.
I'd also pay politicians, MPs a lot more but on the strict proviso they are not allowed any board roles, advisor roles, consultancy roles and second jobs all the while they are a sitting MP. That would overnight sort the intentions of them out and a genuine statesman or woman woukd emerge who truly does have the best interests of the United kingdom and constituents in their heart. No newspaper columns either
A lot of people quite rightly woukd rather keep their financial business their business and fair enough. If the tax wasn't so suppressing on the working and lower middle classes people wouldn't get so angry about people doing stuff that isn't illegal just immoral with their taxes who are mega rich. I put the most i can afford into my pension to reduce my income tax exposure and all manner of things paid for at source to do the same.
Ultimately we are paying a substantial amount more than ever for much worse service and the people we elect to spend that money in the best way possible are fucking it up
You're right about wages though. I keep saying it but if wages had grown with purchasing power since 1980 the average salary would be 85k. If the higher rate income tax threshold had increased with inflation since 1980 it would be 162k. We have a low pay problem. Largely because we have given too much power to large multinational corporations, deregulation and ineffective regulation of them. Its meant that when technological advances like the computer and the Internet have impacted work and improved efficiencies (and soon AI) the resulting gains have not been shared between shareholder and worker but 100% taken by shareholder. In fact it's actually worse than that as its allowed them to surpress wages over a 50 year period.