Redistribution of wealth in the UK

Maizie That is exactly what happened after the Black Death and as for rigid societal hierarchys. These are about as rigid as a lava lamp. There are always people coming in at the bottom while others float down from the top.

The problem with taxing the rich very highly is that not only are they very mobile, but there are actually not that many of them. You can get more tax in by adding 1p to income tax or VAT than you can get by adding 25p to tax rates for the highest.

There are 31 million tax payers. in the UK and the starting salary to be in the top 1%, 310,000, is a salary of £160,000 [[www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-7357395/Who-1-Britain-one-them.html ]]. The majority of people in this group will earn under £250,000. The number of people with enormous incomes, £1 million+ is probably less than 10,000. Even if they all paid £100,000 more tax, it would only bring in £1 billion, negligible in the nation's finances.

By the time most of them have relocated to other countries, the amount would fall even further.

if we want more equality - and I am among those who do, fiddling around with income tax is not going to do it. Taking money from people who have it has never worked. It needs structural changes in society. We would be bette looking at what countries have lower gaps between rich and poor and find how they do it rather than mindlessly parroting slogans that sound good, but would be useless in practice.

Maizie D yes I was referring to the Black Death in England and the point seems to be that the artisans for example builders, stonemasons were in short supply for the building of cathedrals. So I think we have replaced the need for cathedrals with technology and the health industry so therefore scientists, engineers, IT , robotic technology, hydro fluidic researchers, not forgetting new heat and energy technologies and so on. This group is the equivalent of the medieval artisan class?
I agree with you that labour changed feudal society after the Black Death but I still think that the pyramid structure was and still is the dominant model in the Uk.

I'm not sure that taking money from one group to give to another is the best way to achieve equality. Making decent services available to all is a better way, and leaving people to spend their surplus income as they please after that.

It would be fair if every capable adult paid tax* in return for the use of health services, education, housing, pensions and insurance against unemployment, and food was kept at affordable price levels, so everyone could afford necessities, and have equal access to opportunity. I don't think it's fair to penalise those who have more by removing access to things like free social care or to charge more for things like TV licenses, as was mooted on Jeremy Vine this morning. By all means adjust wage differentials and tax progressively (if that will contribute to making things better overall), but when money has been earned it should be up to the earner how they spend it, IMO.

*I would say that tax should increase in line with income, but if tax doesn't fund spending, as we keep being told, then maybe not. I don't know how it would be fair to tax in that case, as I do think that those who can should pay more, but what's the point if it isn't funding spending?

ronib Is there any country in the world where the hierarchy , pyramid structure is NOT the dominant model?

Yes primitive societies have been termed “headless” I think the term is acephalous.

How far back are you going? Humankind has lived in tribes since they became human, as do primates to this day. All have their leaders and pecking orders.

There are some countries which have far more equality, Scandinavian countries have higher tax rates but better pubic services, for example. That's not to say there aren't rich and poor people in those countries, but there aren't as big gaps between them.

pubic services? hmmmm I'm sure they have better ones of those too! (public!)

We don't have to be Stalin to see the practical justice of " to each according to need from each according to ability" .

Caleo

We don't have to be Stalin to see the practical justice of " to each according to need from each according to ability" .

No, that's true. I feel very strongly that if both sides of that equation were in place there would be no need for anyone to be homeless, impoverished or in need.

I cannot find the evidence to say mrsnSunak is no longer non dom. Can anyone help? yes i have googled.

It is up to Mr Sunak to close the non dom loophole as he is PM.

It is not illegal for him to pass a law closing the entire business. But it does seem convenient for mr and mrs that he doesn't do so.

When paople refer to some as "tax payers" they mean income tax payers
As we all pay taxes.
I get stung for VAT and it is a tax !

Doodledog

I'm not sure that taking money from one group to give to another is the best way to achieve equality. Making decent services available to all is a better way, and leaving people to spend their surplus income as they please after that.

It would be fair if every capable adult paid tax* in return for the use of health services, education, housing, pensions and insurance against unemployment, and food was kept at affordable price levels, so everyone could afford necessities, and have equal access to opportunity. I don't think it's fair to penalise those who have more by removing access to things like free social care or to charge more for things like TV licenses, as was mooted on Jeremy Vine this morning. By all means adjust wage differentials and tax progressively (if that will contribute to making things better overall), but when money has been earned it should be up to the earner how they spend it, IMO.

*I would say that tax should increase in line with income, but if tax doesn't fund spending, as we keep being told, then maybe not. I don't know how it would be fair to tax in that case, as I do think that those who can should pay more, but what's the point if it isn't funding spending?

So how would you ensure that the assets of the wealthiest circulated through society? I expect many of the wealthiest do pay all the taxes they have to and there are some who invest in the domestic economy, providing jobs and opportunities for others. However, many don't. They hold stocks and shares in foreign companies. They spend money on foreign-made goods. They own property, which doesn't benefit the domestic economy, often with overseas holding companies. If those people decided to move abroad to escape higher taxation, I'm not sure we'd miss them that much. Is anybody missing the Russian oligarchs?

M0nica

How far back are you going? Humankind has lived in tribes since they became human, as do primates to this day. All have their leaders and pecking orders.

The Wiki quotes the Igbos of Nigeria as an example of an acephalous society for example!

pinkquartz

When paople refer to some as "tax payers" they mean income tax payers
As we all pay taxes.
I get stung for VAT and it is a tax !

We all get stung for tax the moment we turn on our heating, pay council tax, buy fuel for our cars (or buy most things, for that matter).

Only about 25% of the money the Treasury raises is from Income Tax. I agree with you - it annoys me too when people talk about "taxpayers", as though they're a distinct group.

So how would you ensure that the assets of the wealthiest circulated through society? I expect many of the wealthiest do pay all the taxes they have to and there are some who invest in the domestic economy, providing jobs and opportunities for others. However, many don't. They hold stocks and shares in foreign companies. They spend money on foreign-made goods. They own property, which doesn't benefit the domestic economy, often with overseas holding companies. If those people decided to move abroad to escape higher taxation, I'm not sure we'd miss them that much. Is anybody missing the Russian oligarchs?

No I don't, but I don't think that most rich Brits would leave. I wouldn't if I became rich.

I have always felt that fair and progressive taxation (including tax on stocks, shares and profits from other income) would ensure there would be no need for poverty or want in a country as wealthy as the UK (provided measures were taken to ensure compliance), but if taxation doesn't fund spending then I'm at a bit of a loss.

There is only one way to close the rich / poor gap in any society and that is to increase the salaries of the lowest paid.

The problem with taxing the rich very highly is that not only are they very mobile, but there are actually not that many of them. You can get more tax in by adding 1p to income tax or VAT than you can get by adding 25p to tax rates for the highest.

I am looking at taxation as a redistributive measure, MOnica. The amount of additional tax revenue this might or might not add to the national 'income' is completely irrelevant. And you said yourself that the extra tax that high earners might contribute is 'negligible'.

There are 31 million tax payers. in the UK and the starting salary to be in the top 1%, 310,000, is a salary of £160,000 [[www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-7357395/Who-1-Britain-one-them.html ]]. The majority of people in this group will earn under £250,000. The number of people with enormous incomes, £1 million+ is probably less than 10,000. Even if they all paid £100,000 more tax, it would only bring in £1 billion, negligible in the nation's finances.

By the time most of them have relocated to other countries, the amount would fall even further.

Firstly, I'm sceptical of the relocation argument. Are you saying that they will all nip off to other countries and be able to take equally high earning jobs there? I find that a bit unlikely.
Secondly, if they do go, they are not irreplaceable. While free market adherents might try to argue that they have special talents that deserve very high salaries there are equally those who would argue that they are not necessary to a company's performance.

Both viewpoints are represented in this article:

www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210125-why-ceos-make-so-much-money

I did say that I liked your suggestion that executive salaries should be raised by the same percentage as that of company workers. Definitely an equable proposal.

As far as distribution is concerned, I think we really have to look at the source of people's wealth. Leaving aside inherited wealth, we have to ask where the money is coming from to pay these inflated salaries and to pay dividends to investors, who not only pay less tax on them than people pay on earned income, but who are, in the main, already wealthy.

It is pretty clear that the source of these payments is the company's profits. In which case we have to ask, what is the source of the company's profits? and the answer will be, the company's customers. Ultimately, these customers will be the general public, or the state. (tis might be somewhat indirect in the case of companies which supply to other companies, but the money they charge their customers is accounted for in the price of the customer's finished product, sold to the public or the state)

So, it is our money, either from our earnings or from public money, that is creating those profits. If these profits aren't recirculated into the economy by paying workers sufficient not only for necessities, but also for the extras, hospitality, holidays, hairdressers, hobbies etc. then it is being sucked out of the economy by the already wealthy who don't spend enough into the 'domestic' economy to sustain all these small businesses supplying goods and services to the less well paid, and which are the lifeblood of the domestic economy.

Progressive taxation isn't necessarily 'taxing the rich very highly', it is putting them on the same tax footing as the rest of the population so that they pay the same percentage of tax on their incomes, from whatever source, as does the rest of the tax paying population. Which they don't at the moment.

GrannyGravy13

There is only one way to close the rich / poor gap in any society and that is to increase the salaries of the lowest paid.

So where is the money to do that going to come from, GG13?

pinkquartz

When paople refer to some as "tax payers" they mean income tax payers
As we all pay taxes.
I get stung for VAT and it is a tax !

I know that *growstuff's already said it, but I find it infuriating that people seem to think that the only people who pay tax are people paying income tax.

Just about everybody who buys things pays tax! Even children pay tax on their sweets...

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

There is only one way to close the rich / poor gap in any society and that is to increase the salaries of the lowest paid.

So where is the money to do that going to come from, GG13?

If there is enough money to pay shareholders bonuses, SME owners/directors dividends in the price sector, there is enough to pay their employees a decent living wage. To not do so is a false economy.

The public sector has enough money to pay a living wage to its employees, as the Government has control of the money in circulation.

*price should be *private

Doodledog I have always felt that fair and progressive taxation (including tax on stocks, shares and profits from other income) would ensure there would be no need for poverty or want in a country as wealthy as the UK (provided measures were taken to ensure compliance), but if taxation doesn't fund spending then I'm at a bit of a loss.

I agree.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

There is only one way to close the rich / poor gap in any society and that is to increase the salaries of the lowest paid.

So where is the money to do that going to come from, GG13?

If there is enough money to pay shareholders bonuses, SME owners/directors dividends in the price sector, there is enough to pay their employees a decent living wage. To not do so is a false economy.

The public sector has enough money to pay a living wage to its employees, as the Government has control of the money in circulation.

You 'get it' GG13*

I would add, though, that the government issues the money in circulation.

Norah

Doodledog I have always felt that fair and progressive taxation (including tax on stocks, shares and profits from other income) would ensure there would be no need for poverty or want in a country as wealthy as the UK (provided measures were taken to ensure compliance), but if taxation doesn't fund spending then I'm at a bit of a loss.

*I agree.*

Not sure why DD is at a bit of a loss about taxation funding spending. Government spends the money, taxation ensures that there is no excess money in circulation to cause inflation.

Taxation can also be used for other purposes, such as redistribution of wealth, but the government spending comes first, to put money into the economy. If it didn't it would end up with nothing to tax... especially with the rich sucking it out of the economy as fast as they can... Because one thing is certain. Few of 'the rich' put much of their money back into the economy.