Is wealth inequality causing the big issues of our day?

DaisyAnneReturns

David49

ronib

It must be the heat but… according to AI the Uk has 157 billionaires who hold £670 billion in assets.
The mansion tax from April 2028 will cost £380 million to set up and is expected to raise around £430 million annually.
Peanuts?

Another ideological tax little to do with raising revenue

Aren't all rises or falls in taxation ideological David49? Goverments lay out what they intend to do, people vote them into power and they the use taxation as one tool to help them bring about what they had laid out. All governments work this way.

I would agree DAR.

David49

ronib

It must be the heat but… according to AI the Uk has 157 billionaires who hold £670 billion in assets.
The mansion tax from April 2028 will cost £380 million to set up and is expected to raise around £430 million annually.
Peanuts?

Another ideological tax little to do with raising revenue

Aren't all rises or falls in taxation ideological David49? Goverments lay out what they intend to do, people vote them into power and they the use taxation as one tool to help them bring about what they had laid out. All governments work this way.

LemonJam

Barbadosbelle

.

Mmm. As Winston Churchill said -

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".
..

I dont think Churchill actually did say that- there's no historical evidence that he did in either his writings and speeches. The Churchill society classifies this as a misattribution.

The Churchill society however quotes a similar, widely verified quote from American Adrian Rogers who said "You can not legislate the poor into property by legislating the wealthy out of property".

I don't think a wealth tax of the very rich is an aim to legislate the super wealthy out of prosperity- more the case hoping to claw back a relatively small proportion of their super wealth to redistribute to poorer members of society.

I have little faith that funds from a wealth tax being given to the poor by any government of the U.K. whatever colour rosette they wear.

Barbadosbelle

.

Mmm. As Winston Churchill said -

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".
..

We are doing neither at present

Barbadosbelle

.

Mmm. As Winston Churchill said -

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".
..

I dont think Churchill actually did say that- there's no historical evidence that he did in either his writings and speeches. The Churchill society classifies this as a misattribution.

The Churchill society however quotes a similar, widely verified quote from American Adrian Rogers who said "You can not legislate the poor into property by legislating the wealthy out of property".

I don't think a wealth tax of the very rich is an aim to legislate the super wealthy out of prosperity- more the case hoping to claw back a relatively small proportion of their super wealth to redistribute to poorer members of society.

Family member lives in the south, not London. When I'm visiting I have a look round at the properties for sale. Family member 3 bed semi similar house for sale £760k. And that will probably go for more.

.

Mmm. As Winston Churchill said -

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".
..

How about setting a sliding scale wealth tax starting at income and assets with a cumulative value of over £10 million 🤷‍♀️

knspol

25Avalon

I get there are disproportionate differences in the amount of the wealth or the lack of it between the very rich and the poor. I’m not sure tax is the way forward however. To me one of the major factors is the amount of money that the top bosses earn. Even their bonuses are obscenely high. One poor family could live comfortably on that bonus for years.

Is it fair to disproportionally tax people who have worked hard all their lives, gained qualifications and expertise and now work in a cut throat environment and maybe responsible for the jobs of many others? I don't think so. High salaries and bonuses aren't generally paid out to people who aren't doing a good job (some head line exceptions I know) and to attract the best people for a job there have to be incentives.
I am in favour of higher taxes so long as they are universal but I think penalising people who have an expensive home or a large garden is simply the politics of envy.

These are not people who will be affected by wealth tax.

M0nica

But most people's wealth is savings and pension plus their house. That is what our wealth is.

We aren’t talking about most people wealth.

knspol

25Avalon

I get there are disproportionate differences in the amount of the wealth or the lack of it between the very rich and the poor. I’m not sure tax is the way forward however. To me one of the major factors is the amount of money that the top bosses earn. Even their bonuses are obscenely high. One poor family could live comfortably on that bonus for years.

Is it fair to disproportionally tax people who have worked hard all their lives, gained qualifications and expertise and now work in a cut throat environment and maybe responsible for the jobs of many others? I don't think so. High salaries and bonuses aren't generally paid out to people who aren't doing a good job (some head line exceptions I know) and to attract the best people for a job there have to be incentives.
I am in favour of higher taxes so long as they are universal but I think penalising people who have an expensive home or a large garden is simply the politics of envy.

I agree with every word you have said. You really have put this so well. I have never been wealthy but certainly do not envy anyone who is or wish to take from them.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

All I can say is that after working until the age of 70 I am chronically poor. Can't afford new glasses, dentist or a car. Don't even mention holidays!!

But most people's wealth is savings and pension plus their house. That is what our wealth is.

Yes orly it is wealth that this is about.

What annoys me is the mixing up of "wealth" and "savings and pensions". I have the latter and while I'm fairly well off, compared to some, I'm not wealthy and I've paid for both from working. So why does Labour and Rachel Reeves keep going for pensioners. I'm just as working class as when I was working but in Rachel's eyes I'm not. Plus I'm a WASPI

25Avalon

I get there are disproportionate differences in the amount of the wealth or the lack of it between the very rich and the poor. I’m not sure tax is the way forward however. To me one of the major factors is the amount of money that the top bosses earn. Even their bonuses are obscenely high. One poor family could live comfortably on that bonus for years.

Is it fair to disproportionally tax people who have worked hard all their lives, gained qualifications and expertise and now work in a cut throat environment and maybe responsible for the jobs of many others? I don't think so. High salaries and bonuses aren't generally paid out to people who aren't doing a good job (some head line exceptions I know) and to attract the best people for a job there have to be incentives.
I am in favour of higher taxes so long as they are universal but I think penalising people who have an expensive home or a large garden is simply the politics of envy.

So it seems to me reading and listening that now the idea of a wealth tax is becoming more mainstream, rather then sitting and trying to decide what would be the best tax that we should simply make a start and do it, just as we start everything else. It isn’t perfect to begin with but we learn as we go along. Because if we don’t make a start, assets will continue to concentrate, governments will become poorer as will the worlds population.

We do know how the rich are hoovering up wealth, in many directions, including Trump, his allies and families.

One way of looking at the way the ultra rich are hoovering up the wealth is to look at what has happened during the past few weeks and oil and associated commodities.

The wealthy have increased their holdings by an enormous amount and everyone else is waiting in trepidation for the hit to the cost of living which everyone say will come crashing on our heads over the next few months.

MaizieD, I've been active and posting on Gransnet for less than a year but have read many of your posts.

I read WWM2's post to you at 09.45 asking "are you simply going to lie back and think of England whilst our assets are raped" and then read your reply "More or less yes". That's fine and that's your view but lying back and doing nothing won't change the status quo. The OP put forward a suggestion of a wealth tax which works well in some other countries.

The majority of us care deeply about the appalling status quo about the gap between rich and poor and thank you for making clear you also care deeply.

I understand you're busy at the moment though so won't ask you any further questions.

You disagree and give your view how the economy works but have not suggested any alternative approach you would like any government to take other than wealth tax to try and decrease the widening gap between rich and poor as you seemingly are more or less happy to accept the status quo..

You clearly haven't read many of my posts over the last few years.

I'm to busy to respond at the moment, but I can assure you I care very deeply of the appalling status quo but don't find much support.

You can't buck the market Lamont found out about that,

Lamont had no intention whatsover to increase state spending. The markets were the tory's gods. Obviously they're your gods, too. We are in a very different situation now.

ronib

Even more obvious is that there’s zero chance of any levelling up from this policy. Why bother?

That’s an interesting idea, can you expand it further?

I do understand that taxing wealth is a difficult issue, but the more I read the more I am convinced that it is a valid argument, particularly when I became aware of a number of poet laureate economists who have reached that conclusion.

From what I gather of the top 50 economists supporting a wealth tax there are at least 7 poet laureates, so it is not such a daft idea. The list includes both academic and applied economists.

It won solve all the issues at OP states- butt it would be as start and there are successful examples as OP suggests eg. Norway or Switzerland.

I'm interested if anyone has any alternative and/or additional suggestions?