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

He’s just publish a book - not expensive.

He does need listening to, in order to understand his argument.

I think it is unarguable, but at 2% only a start. I would argue for at least 8%

The details of the book are under the YouTube video - I didn't think I should advertise .

I thought it stripped the whole idea right back Whitewave and it's very interesting that France has already passed some of the law to bring it in. He also brought up the idea of agreed international minimums.

His mention of the 22 richest families who used to own 5% of UK wealth now owning 25% both jolts you into the growth in inequality and may serve to convince some that this is not aimed at them.

I'm also glad that this may put to bed Rory Stuarts unnecessary comments about a lack of academics in the discussion.

Yes, I think his comment was crass, and he should be embarrassed.

I shall watch this develop as it definitely seems to be catching interest.

Not surprised that 85% of people support a wealth tax.

The fact that the top 1% pay no tax on income doesn’t really come as a surprise, but given the fact that someone with over 100 million pays next to nothing relative to those at the bottom who pay 50% overall is really wrong.

I have always believed that if you live in a society and benefit from everything living in that society gives you, you should contribute the same % of your income as everyone else.

👏👏 about time.. 85% support is impressive.

^I have always believed that if you live in a society and benefit from everything living in that society gives you, you should contribute the same % of your income as everyone else. (Whitewave)

He described how, if Americans go to live elsewherethey still have to pay tax to America. He seemed to suggest that it wouldn't be difficult to make similar laws which mean people leaving the UK would the have to pay their tax to the UK for, say, 10 years.

^He described how, if Americans go to live elsewhere they still have to pay tax to America.*

I knew that, but I wonder how many of the super wealthy it catches?

I actually wonder how much tax people like Musk, Bezos and Gates really pay; I know they do live in the US but I'm sure they must be pretty well advised on avoidance...

I still have problems with the concept of a 'wealth tax'; I don't think it's as straightforward as people think it is.

Assets 'may' be easy to value, but so much of their wealth is on paper. e.g shares, which may go up or down in value. At what point are they valued for taxation purposes?

I'm wondering how USA tax overseas Americans. If they didn't pay, how would US treasury enforce? I always thought the law that applies to you is the law of your country of residence.

I'm not questioning that they do, just find it intriguing how they can.

There is another interview with Gabriel Zucman here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTA5UuSfZk4

It's a different style of interview with very few interruptions - just those to ask a new question. I found it easier to watch and pick up facts. Of course the facts haven't change so it may be listening to both helped.

One of the points becoming clear is that to establish equality you cannot tax these very wealthy people on the basis of income to ensure equality, as they will ensure they have little or no income. He is suggesting a 2% tax on the total wealth of the very, very rich. Otherwise you are accepting that the very wealthy have a right to pay no tax even though they will have benefited from what tax provides. That cannot be right.

He also seems to say that it needs to be 2% of wealth because this then ensures that the billionaires cannot pay less tax than the rest of the population.

valdali

I'm wondering how USA tax overseas Americans. If they didn't pay, how would US treasury enforce? I always thought the law that applies to you is the law of your country of residence.

I'm not questioning that they do, just find it intriguing how they can.

You pay for as long as you keep your American citizenship valdali.

There is now an automatic exchange of bank information between banks and other countries. There could be a seizure of assetts in this country. Please don't take his as what would happen just what could happen. Being criminalised is not what most people want.

DaisyAnneReturns

One of the points becoming clear is that to establish equality you cannot tax these very wealthy people on the basis of income to ensure equality, as they will ensure they have little or no income. He is suggesting a 2% tax on the total wealth of the very, very rich. Otherwise you are accepting that the very wealthy have a right to pay no tax even though they will have benefited from what tax provides. That cannot be right.

He went on to suggest that in order to reduce inequality, which to me is important to bring stability and greater democracy, the ultra wealthy need to be taxed at 8% pa. With absolutely no exemptions.

The cooperation between banks and indeed revenue depts., make this far easier than previously, when frankly the ultra-rich through various accountancy practices lived outside of the tax regime.

This is beginning to change - it will not be easy as the billionaires will use every means to avoid joining the rest of the world in paying a fair share for what you get, but it is going to happen.

I might even live long enough to see this happen.

It will only be the beginning of change if we have a government brave enough to do it, sadly.

DaisyAnneReturns

It will only be the beginning of change if we have a government brave enough to do it, sadly.

Yes but it isn’t just happening in this country. France seems to be leading the way and I have no doubt that other countries - the nordics,? Will follow suit.

Once one country gets a successful system running other countries will of course do the same.

Of course if Reform get in it will definitely be put off but they won’t exist for ever 🤞🤞

As an aside. This cooperation between tax regimes has been going on at a relatively low level for years, particularly between EU members - the system was known as Fiscalis, which I took part in working with Germany, Italy and Spain and equivalent officers. We used to meet up and it proved very lucrative when we targeted a particular sector or international company.

It was funded by the EU.

We as a country obviously need to tax to make the country work. However, the government must be careful not to discourage 'money' from leaving the country. Money is leaving at an alarming rate under this government. The next government is going to have the job of getting it back. I just hope Labour voters realise this. Responsible thought and critical thinking is needed when voting.

love0c

We as a country obviously need to tax to make the country work. However, the government must be careful not to discourage 'money' from leaving the country. Money is leaving at an alarming rate under this government. The next government is going to have the job of getting it back. I just hope Labour voters realise this. Responsible thought and critical thinking is needed when voting.

Taxing the ultra wealthy in the way being suggested will overcome the issue of money leaving the country. It won’t matter where their wealth “sits”.

It is their citizenship that is important.

While I applaud moves towards taxing existing wealth I still don’t understand why there is little interest in preventing the accumulation of that wealth in the first place.

I know that the prime argument against imposing things like equalising capital gains tax, price controls and windfall taxes is that it would stifle business and entrepreneurs, but is everyone in business solely motivated by the possibility of becoming wealthy?

If we discouraged those who are motivated by greed for wealth would there be others happy to do business with more modest (or even, altruistic) desires?

MaizieD there needs to be a clear demarcation between the mega rich (billionaires and now trillionaires) and the millionaire SME owners.

When and who decides they have accumulated their fair share of wealth?

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.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD there needs to be a clear demarcation between the mega rich (billionaires and now trillionaires) and the millionaire SME owners.

When and who decides they have accumulated their fair share of wealth?

I’m not calling for bread and water for all entrepreneurs, you know

You do sound a bit defensive, though.

There has to be a balance found somewhere. I believe that ‘money’ is a public ‘good’ which is provided by the state to enable the economic activity which contributes to maintaining a decent life for all it’s citizens. Perhaps a state like the one which produced and acted on the Beveridge Report in the 1940s and ‘50s.

As it stands now we have a state which allows, almost encourages, that public good to flow continually upwards in the direction of the wealthy and even to disappear into non productive activity targeted on increasing their own personal wealth without doing anything to improve the wellbeing of their fellow citizens or of the state itself.

Intake your point about a demarcation, though I think thatcwould be a very tricky thing to negotiate and manage, but it seems to me that if the state wants to rehonour Beveridge it either has to continue to issue more and more money to its poorest citizens to achieve a decent life. Which if course would just lead to hyperinflation and even more wealth flowing upwards, or it has to bring the wealth accumulators under control by encouraging them to use their wealth productively, sanctioning those who don’t, and preventing the accumulation of so much of the public good in the first place.

apologies for all the typos 🤭