Is wealth inequality causing the big issues of our day?

I would have to receive many millions before I'd have trouble spending it!

Sadly the internet has made a nonsense of government's ability to hold the wealthy to account. If you just look up the details of Christopher Harbonne, who donated that sum to Farage, he lives in Thailand now and spends his time throwing his money around political parties and whatever interest or scheme takes his fancy.

It is people like this whose ability to live where they want, spend their money where they want who actually control the world we live in via the stock market and investments. They can buy anything and anyone. The financial system as it exists is well out of control, it's mad to think that we will somehow lose out if they go and live elsewhere! I don't even see how a wealth tax will influence this because they will have a way out that the ordinary person doesn't have.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Harborne
Forgot the link though no one on GN ever follows them.

Sometimes we do, Granatlast, so, thanks for bothering.

Whitewavemark2

ronib

The billionaire class will simply up sticks.

They haven’t in countries that have introduced a wealth tax. That is propaganda put out by the vastly wealthy.

But tbh that isn’t the point. Their assets like property/ stocks etc remains and this is what is being taxed.

Those states that have a wealth tax have so many exemption for business that it's only an ideological sop to the socialists and does not generate much revenue. Assets invested in active businesses is always taxed differently to that in stocks and shares, savings and pensions.

Billionaires and other wealthy people have most of the wealth invested in their companies, their wealth is the value of their shares which changes from year to year and is taxed when they are sold with CGT. Billionaires are an easy target but they are few in relation to the population and will not contribute much extra revenue that has to come from those that are above average income/wealth, you and I, pensioners are one group that has excess wealth.

We have already seen increased taxes on pensions and rental income, bringing CGT inline with income tax is probably the next move that is likely to be made because it's easy to administer. I don't foresee a separate wealth tax before the next GE.

I'm always suprised by those on GN who argue as if they would be hurt by a wealth tax. I thought this might help.

Working Class:
Income Range: Typically up to around £25,000 - £35,000 annually.
Characteristics: Often includes manual workers, service industry employees, and those with lower-paid jobs. Income may be insufficient for significant savings or luxury spending.

Middle Class:
Income Range: Approximately £35,000 to £70,000-£100,000 annually.
Characteristics: Includes professionals, managers, and small business owners. Usually able to afford homeownership, some leisure activities, and moderate savings.

Rich (Upper Middle Class / Affluent):
Income Range: Usually starting from around £100,000 to several hundred thousand pounds annually.
Characteristics: Wealthy professionals, successful entrepreneurs, and high-level executives. Often owners of multiple properties, substantial savings, and investments.

Ultra-Rich (Elite / Wealthy):
Net Worth: Typically exceeding £1 million in liquid assets, but often much higher (e.g., £10 million+).
Characteristics: Ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNWI), billionaires, and multimillionaires with substantial assets, investments, and luxury lifestyles.

I'm in favour of a limited time wealth tax. However, although I recognise Rishi Sunak was honest and open about his taxes no one should legally be able to pay less on billions than those at the bottom of the table pay on a low income. I believe it's the overall tax system that needs long term reorganisation.

“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political power to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the twentieth Century.”

This is precisely what the Tories have done for years, and what Reform UK is doing now, in front of our very eyes.

GrannyGravy13

The problem with resenting paying taxes arises when government after government squanders ££££’s on vanity projects like HS2…

Those that the wealth tax would affect have almost certainly made money from HS2 - so bring it on they say!

It is our tax that contribute towards the ultra rich.

LizzieDrip

“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political power to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the twentieth Century.”

This is precisely what the Tories have done for years, and what Reform UK is doing now, in front of our very eyes.

True, LizzieDrip but it's not recent. All through history wealth has been power. There were a couple of decades after the war when it was turned around but that's been unravelling ever since. Extreme wealth has only ever worked for the extremely wealthy. The rest of us have to understand it's not just our souls that the rich (the company store) owns. We are becoming no more important than cattle; we are owned and governments are there just to persuade us we still have autonomy.

"Rich (Upper Middle Class / Affluent):
Income Range: Usually starting from around £100,000 to several hundred thousand pounds annually.
Characteristics: Wealthy professionals, successful entrepreneurs, and high-level executives. Often owners of multiple properties, substantial savings, and investments"

You conveniently forgot pensioners with their homes paid for and fat pensions.

Of course everyone is in favour of a wealth tax if it doesn't affect them

I have just read that Streeting is advocating a wealth tax in his leadership pitch.

Please do not assume that I support Streeting😄😄

David49

"Rich (Upper Middle Class / Affluent):
Income Range: Usually starting from around £100,000 to several hundred thousand pounds annually.
Characteristics: Wealthy professionals, successful entrepreneurs, and high-level executives. Often owners of multiple properties, substantial savings, and investments"

You conveniently forgot pensioners with their homes paid for and fat pensions.

Of course everyone is in favour of a wealth tax if it doesn't affect them

David - you are another missing the point.

When we talk about being vastly wealthy with the ability to influence stock markets, voters and governments - there are none at that level in your list.

Whitewavemark2

David49

"Rich (Upper Middle Class / Affluent):
Income Range: Usually starting from around £100,000 to several hundred thousand pounds annually.
Characteristics: Wealthy professionals, successful entrepreneurs, and high-level executives. Often owners of multiple properties, substantial savings, and investments"

You conveniently forgot pensioners with their homes paid for and fat pensions.

Of course everyone is in favour of a wealth tax if it doesn't affect them

David - you are another missing the point.

When we talk about being vastly wealthy with the ability to influence stock markets, voters and governments - there are none at that level in your list.

Markets are influenced by herd action not individuals, large financial investors who chase each other up and down the stocks and shares. It very often bears little relationship to the actual value of the company.

Any profits they make trading is taxed in their home administration, until we gave global unified taxation any hope of fairness is just dreaming.

All through history wealth has been power. There were a couple of decades after the war when it was turned around but that's been unravelling ever since. Extreme wealth has only ever worked for the extremely wealthy. The rest of us have to understand it's not just our souls that the rich (the company store) owns. We are becoming no more important than cattle; we are owned and governments are there just to persuade us we still have autonomy

I agree DAR😡

David49

"Rich (Upper Middle Class / Affluent):
Income Range: Usually starting from around £100,000 to several hundred thousand pounds annually.
Characteristics: Wealthy professionals, successful entrepreneurs, and high-level executives. Often owners of multiple properties, substantial savings, and investments"

You conveniently forgot pensioners with their homes paid for and fat pensions.

Of course everyone is in favour of a wealth tax if it doesn't affect them

Democracy in action!

ronib

£2 million is the price of a standard middle class house in the South East.

I live in a village in West Oxfordshire. My detached four/bed house isn’t even worth half a million. There are a couple of £2 million pound houses (massive with stabling) in the village but most are priced at around £500,000. I wonder where you get your figures from?!

The houses down the road from me…. Nothing to write home about. Two million plus for standard detached 4 beds with parking, garage and garden. Not mine I add …. But at least I am at the top of the hill…. Near a fast train into London plus excellent motorway links…

Wyllow3 But - she says the financial help they get managing the investments, the bloke is constantly telling them how they could squirrel away bits of money for tax evasion and how many people he helps do this. Its being done on a huge huge scale

Well I hope she has reported him to the authorities, tax evasion and anyone facilitating it is breaking the law. Tax avoidance on the other hand is perfectly legal and enjoyed by many who have for example, savings in an ISA, or like Anthony Benn put in place trusts that meant his descendants didn't pay inheritance tax on the large scale it might have been. I personally think tax avoidance schemes have far too many loopholes and fuzzy areas, but that's for governments to deal with.

Thought to share - 8 beds with a ballroom for £4,750,000 ….. within walking distance of my house…. Seriously funny.

Whitewavemark2

David49

"Rich (Upper Middle Class / Affluent):
Income Range: Usually starting from around £100,000 to several hundred thousand pounds annually.
Characteristics: Wealthy professionals, successful entrepreneurs, and high-level executives. Often owners of multiple properties, substantial savings, and investments"

You conveniently forgot pensioners with their homes paid for and fat pensions.

Of course everyone is in favour of a wealth tax if it doesn't affect them

David - you are another missing the point.

When we talk about being vastly wealthy with the ability to influence stock markets, voters and governments - there are none at that level in your list.

My comment was that there are many pensioners are within the "Rich" grouping that DAR set, with property and investments up to £1m and more.

Nothing whatever to do with markets.

ronib

£2 million is the price of a standard middle class house in the South East.

To get back to ronib's original statement

According to Chatgtp there are currently around 100,000–125,000 worth £2million + in the UK

Homes worth under £2m~31 million

Land Registry count figures

14 - 15% of land and property is still unregistered but this isn't all houses, it will include a lot of land.

That is not a great percentage of high value housing. (Perhaps someone would like to work out the %age)

To look at DAR's point:

There were a couple of decades after the war when it was turned around but that's been unravelling ever since.

It was more like 3 decades when the government was still following Keynesian economics. It turned around after the 1980s when Thatcher came to power and radically changed the economic model.

Once again , Chatgtp summarises these decades:

From 1945 to around 1980, Britain operated one of the most heavily taxed and tightly controlled capitalist systems in the developed world. Top marginal income tax rates on the wealthy were routinely above 90%, while investment income in the 1970s could face a headline rate of 98%. Large estates faced inheritance taxes of up to 75–80%, corporation tax rose as high as 52%, and extensive exchange controls restricted the movement of capital abroad.

The result was a major compression of inequality. The share of income and wealth held by the top 1% fell dramatically compared with the prewar era, while wage differentials narrowed and working-class living standards improved substantially. This was not due to taxation alone: full employment policies, powerful trade unions, expansion of the welfare state, council housing, public healthcare and education all contributed to a more equal society. Britain in the 1950s–70s was significantly more economically equal than either interwar Britain or the UK after the 1980s.

With caveats

The system also weakened old inherited wealth. Aristocratic estates were broken up, landholdings sold off, and inherited fortunes diluted by taxation, inflation and postwar economic change. Wealth became less concentrated, though by no means evenly distributed.

However, the era’s famous headline tax rates often raised less revenue than expected because avoidance became widespread. Wealthy individuals used trusts, offshore structures, capital gains treatment and corporate retention strategies to reduce effective taxation. High taxation also encouraged emigration by some wealthy individuals and professionals, while businesses increasingly invested abroad. Yet because Britain maintained strict exchange controls until 1979, large-scale unrestricted capital flight of the modern kind was difficult.

I apologise for using AI but it would have taken me forever to get the same result...

So one could ask why Labour is introducing this increase in taxes if it’s not going to bring much revenue?
Also what will be the effect on the general housing market when properties over £2m fail to sell in good time? Price stagnation filtered down so probably a good idea? But a loss to the Treasury on stamp duty revenue overall?

twaddle

No, ronib, the vast majority of the "middle class" does not have £2 million.

That is not what ronib said, what she said is that taxing people with houses Now worth 2 million will affect the middle classes.

There are uite a number of people who bought reasonably priced houses 20 or more years ago who because of the accident of where they bought their house now find that that their house has rocketed in value.

We were almost unbelieving when the estate Agent valued our house for sale some 2 years ago. Certainly not £2 million but for a whole range of reasons the area, in the wider sense, had become hughly desirable in the last 3 years and the value had gone up faster than average.

However we do not have any definition of what is middle class and what is not. If we take simple the middle third of incomes, then it includes all those earninbg between £25,000 and £45,000. All those earning over £45,000 are upper class, not many will have homes now worth £2 million.

People keep talking about wealthy people, but no one ever defines what they mean be wealthy. What annual income makes you wealthy? What bought price for a house makes you wealthy? It always ends with subjective conclusions. To someone on £15,000 a aperson in £30,000 is wealthy. To someone on £30,000, they would probably rekon someone on £60,000 was weaalthy.

Whitewavemark2
Why do you presume ‘We are talking about the top 1-5% here - definitely not in GN territory’. I’m sure there are people on GN who would fit this description.