Interview with the economist billionaires fear: this is how we get a wealth tax

DAR You have missed the point. We need a business to stay in this country. If it moves abroad then yes it could be made to still pay tax. However, if it moves abroad it will no longer employ people here. The now non employed will not be paying tax and NI. So they will not be spending money which in turn supports other business and so it goes on. We need the business to stay in this country. We must not discourage them by taxing too highly. The same for the very rich. If they leave they no longer spend here. Simple economics. I am amazed Labour supporters do not understand this simple process.

MaizieD

^Those individuals driven to achieve and accumulate wealth will always have that drive and ambition^

Yes, it's called greed when it is used only to increase their individual wealth and not reinvested productively. 'Drive and ambition' very often tramples on the poorer in society.

I do not believe that every entrepreneur is motivated by the acquisition of wealth. SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy, they may make their founders comfortable but I doubt if many go on to achieve excessive wealth.

^ Realistically it would be easier for a state to ensure they pay a fair share of their wealth towards the state's infrastructure than preventing wealth^

Why is preventing excessive wealth such a no no?

Why should the money that the state provides be accumulated by a relatively small number of its citizens before the state does anything to retrieve some of it?

The whole of the taxation system is based on those who strive to better themselves, be that a better job or expand a business, is that wrong, is providing jobs for others wrong.

A sliding scale would be fairer.

Blair was undoubtedly the most popular Conservative PM, we still havnt recovered the 2008 crash still, that Brown walked straight into with deregulation.

Whitewavemark2

I’m not sure preventing wealth is a no no.

The point is how do you prevent it - what would be the mechanism?

Yes, it’s a fine line between preventing wealth accumulation and suppressing investment in industry, businesses which benefit the U.K. and provide employment and therefore tax revenue for the government.

One of my bugbears is IHT and how it is collected.

For purely personal reasons I wish it was higher than £1,000.000, It has been set at this level since 1986. A million pounds purchasing power is considerably less now than it was then.

I would be in favour of a sliding scale, maybe starting at 5% on £2,000.000 and increments of 5% every £5 million up to a maximum of 25%.

I’m not sure preventing wealth is a no no.

The point is how do you prevent it - what would be the mechanism?

MaizieD what about the £millions won on various lotteries?

REKA

*Tony Blair today welcomed 11 private healthcare providers into the "NHS family", as he promised them the chance to gain a stronger foothold in the NHS.*

Predicting that the private sector would soon provide up to 40% of NHS operations, Mr Blair said the independent providers could help drive up the quality of service to patients which he said was the "most important thing".

This quote from the Guardian

Don't forget that Tony was an advocate for private funding for the NHS

Tony Blair has been seduced by wealth. His piece is ridiculous.

Tony Blair didn't get everything right- but clearing the waiting lists by a £ ring fenced infusion was a very good thing.

By infrastructure I mean building new hospitals, improving road and rail networks all of which provide jobs.
Supplying materials for these also provides employment and should help our failing industries.

When people are in paid employment they pay taxes and spend in the economy.

All the above will help to grow the economy, which is desperately needed.

Tony Blair today welcomed 11 private healthcare providers into the "NHS family", as he promised them the chance to gain a stronger foothold in the NHS.

Predicting that the private sector would soon provide up to 40% of NHS operations, Mr Blair said the independent providers could help drive up the quality of service to patients which he said was the "most important thing".

This quote from the Guardian

Don't forget that Tony was an advocate for private funding for the NHS

Those individuals driven to achieve and accumulate wealth will always have that drive and ambition

Yes, it's called greed when it is used only to increase their individual wealth and not reinvested productively. 'Drive and ambition' very often tramples on the poorer in society.

I do not believe that every entrepreneur is motivated by the acquisition of wealth. SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy, they may make their founders comfortable but I doubt if many go on to achieve excessive wealth.

^ Realistically it would be easier for a state to ensure they pay a fair share of their wealth towards the state's infrastructure than preventing wealth^

Why is preventing excessive wealth such a no no?

Why should the money that the state provides be accumulated by a relatively small number of its citizens before the state does anything to retrieve some of it?

"Health: major £ infusion ring fenced to clear waiting list backlogs within discrete timescale, plus to achieve 18 week treatment targets thereafter"

Tony Blair did exactly this in the early 2000s after decades of NHS underfunding and the major cash boost was successful. It then set the 18 week consultant led benchmark establishing the legal right for patients to be seen and treated within 18 weeks. 92% of patient had to achieve this treatment target at each and every NHS trust otherwise there were contract penalties £.

We subsequently had 14 years of Conservative Government and the standard woefully slipped and waiting lists increased year. on year. Plus the symptoms of those on the waiting list get worse, their health continues to deteriorate and delayed treatment leads to poorer outcomes and longer hospital stays post operatively on occasion.

UK health and mortality rates have deteriorated as a consequence and the UK slipped down the global comparator list.

This would be a major boost and needs to be repeated at the earliest opportunity.

Whitewavemark2

😄 we can but dream!

😴 🤞I am on that NHS waiting list and one year later- still waiting 🥱

maremia our local hospital is being gradually rebuilt - prior to that one of it’s buildings was built as a workhouse and the other purpose built in something like 1900 - so it is time it was renewed. At present work is just starting on a huge new cancer unit.

😄 we can but dream!

Definitely towards education, and evening out NHS provision countrywide.
From posts on these Threads, there seems to be a postcode lottery, which seems unfair.
Anyway, until it is achieved, it's academic.
But, on the other hand, good to be prepared and have the vision.

Setting aside a portion of this wealth tax each year for priority spend?

My fantasy current spending wish list (this is off the top of my head could be much more measured and detailed with more reflection) and could change year to year:

Health: major £ infusion ring fenced to clear waiting list backlogs within discrete timescale, plus to achieve 18 week treatment targets thereafter
Education: ( see Carole Vorderman post) £infusion to ensure teachers receive mandatory training in online harm of children PLUS dedicated Support Welfare post/person in each and every state school
*Social Care*: cross party, time limited project, to work up proposals to implement a National Health and Social Care Service with associated funding plan. £infusion to set up
Housing: £infusion to councils ring fenced to reduce waiting list for social housing with permission to build new homes for all ages.

Mind you we are a long way off that as yet.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 by redistribution do you mean job creation via infrastructure projects?

I hope you do not mean increased welfare payments, as that budget appears to be growing fast enough as it.

(I am all for a safety net, but against benefits as a lifestyle choice. Which does and is happening)

Well, everyone will have different ideas, but I would like to see investment into education - Inc. school infrastructure, investment into our health service, including a proper social care system - which takes the burden off our hospitals, investment into transport including rail and road., and investment into social housing to get the poor out of the disgusting living conditions they are experiencing.

At present a conservative value of £30 billion would be raised pa on just a couple of thousand families in the U.K. at 8%,

Whitewavemark2 by redistribution do you mean job creation via infrastructure projects?

I hope you do not mean increased welfare payments, as that budget appears to be growing fast enough as it.

(I am all for a safety net, but against benefits as a lifestyle choice. Which does and is happening)

LemonJam

Whitewavemark2

I don’t really think this is about preventing wealth. It is about ensuring those who profit most from a country’s infrastructure, education, defence etc etc, pay towards it just as everyone else does.

At present they operate outside the law. This is what the 2% is all about.

I would also like to see a way of closing the inequality gap because I don’t think it is good for democracy. That would take 8% according to Kugman and others which given the level of their wealth I don’t think is asking too much.

I would also like to see a way of closing the inequality gap in the way Kugman suggests.

Those individuals driven to achieve and accumulate wealth will always have that drive and ambition. Realistically it would be easier for a state to ensure they pay a fair share of their wealth toward's the state's infrastructure than preventing wealth.

Yes, no one has come up with anything close to preventing the accumulation of individual wealth, except perhaps China, although they have a lot of billionaires they are closely controlled I believe.

Health, education, social care and housing......

Grantanow

And defence against Putin?

Well, this is about raising tax to close the inequality gap.

Defence and its funding is not really the issue, but I take your point -it serves as an example of how there will be disagreements over how this potential redistribution should work.

And defence against Putin?