Should we be more open to a wealth tax?

Aveline

Nevertheless they should be pursued!

Yep, maybe one day 🤷‍♀️, we can only hope…

Nevertheless they should be pursued!

I agree vintageclassics

However, the big boys are harder to go after, whereas those who are middle income, may have a few investments, mortgage free etc., are easy to target…

That's a much better suggestion vintage classics

I rather think it depends on what qualifies as wealth. I have a 400 year old cottage I bought 40 years ago 2.5 beds large garden and worth probably over £450k, nice area friendly neighbours etc - does that make me wealthy? I really don't want to downsize to a 2 bed on some commuter estate. In terms of available cash yes I have some savings (much of which I do pay tax on) and a pension which is also taxed - I'm comfortable but wouldn't describe myself as wealthy. Why on earth don't we charge companies that operate and profit from trading in the UK pay Corporation tax on those profits? HSBC, Amazon, Facebook, Daily Mail, and any other foreign owned biz?

MaizieD

I'm up for taxing wealth, but to think it's possible to tax the apparent wealth of the rich is a bit naive because the wealthy carefully distribute their wealth in assets (land and property) which it would be hard to value, in networks of companies in a way which make it difficult to identify just who ultimately benefits from the wealth, in trusts, in offshore accounts, in tax havens and in equities (stocks and shares) which continually vary in value. A prime example of the latter would be Elon Musk who was recently declared to be a trillionaire on the strength of the initial sale of shares in his company, but who is no longer a trillionaire because the share price dropped once trading them started.

All in all, it might cost so much to establish the amount to be taxed, and time, as lengthy appeals to the tax law would inevitably arise. The actual tax take could be quite underwhelming.

While some unhidden wealth could be taxed fairly easily it would be better to concentrate on a progressive tax regime which prevents them acquiring so much in the first place. It was done post WW2 and significantly caused progress to a more equitable distribution of wealth, progress which has, with the implementation of different economic policies, been almost reversed, we could usefully look to the post WW2 policies for ideas.

I appreciate that with the growth of the 'global economy' with foreign corporate bodies sucking so much wealth out of individual nations which they carefully arrange to be taxed in low tax jurisdictions, rather than in the jurisdiction where it is 'earned', this has added a level of complexity, but there is still much that could be done domestically.

Some good ideas and points. But we would have to get rid of a lot of corruption first

I say NO to a wealth tax. As house prices have risen particularly in the South East, many 'ordinary' people might be classed as wealthy. I think it would destroy aspiration of any kind. What about those of us who have done without for years, saved hard, not had all the latest gadgets in favour of attempting to guarantee a decent retirement in a nice home? I think it's a fact that 'super wealthy' people will have accountants that find ways to reduce any wealth tax while others end up paying for having been careful and saving hard. I'm much more in favour of a blanket increase in income tax and a more careful look at some of the younger people claiming sickness benefits for things like stress.

eazybee

No.
Cut the Welfare Bill.

Agreed. 40% of people pay no income tax at all and many of those are claiming.

Yes! Of course we need equitable tax. And the billionaires should be taxed. Their money does nothing good for us.

Have a look at today's podcast on YT The Rest Is Politics Leading to see the horrible spectacle of Rory Stewart cringing and wringing his hands and spouting the same old 'the rich will just move away ' cliches and excuses.

Let's not get too enthusiastic about a Norway model for Wealth Tax it it very controversial and there has been a large exodus of wealthy individuals.

All global assets are included including private residences with discounts of various levels for different assets, if you are retired and retain a large residence you will be paying a significant tax.

In the case of Norway a wealth tax is entirely ideological, aimed at more equal society, they have no need to raise more tax the economy produces a large surplus which is retained for long term investment.

The UK is entiredly different, we have a weak economy and need to encourage enterprise, so wealth leaving the UK is very unhelpful. Im not expecting a wealth before the next GE, then if Labour do get a majority there may well be one.

Aveline

If Norway is such a paragon why are people not flocking there?

Have you seen the weather!

Seriously Norway does have people applying to reside, but has rules the same as every other country.

I recently spent time to talking to a Norwegian immigrant. He had emigrated to Norway from America. The contrast between the two countries could hardly be greater for ordinary folk. He now has a family and listed the huge benefits for his family living in Norway compared to the USA. He was able to emigrate to Norway because he met and married a Norwegian woman.

If Norway is such a paragon why are people not flocking there?

Whitewavemark2

Well Norway is one of the most equitable societies, in the western world so it seems to manage that perfectly well.

Yes, I know - I was just making the point that an area with lots of billionaires will get a lot more in taxes than one with lots of people on benefits, and asking how that works to create a more equal society (which is something I would like to see, too).

As far as I’m concerned that is what I want.

A much more equitable society. This brings less division, a healthier population who are cared for.

Well Norway is one of the most equitable societies, in the western world so it seems to manage that perfectly well.

That does sound a good model on the whole, but giving some of the take to the municipality (assuming that equates roughly to Local Authorities here?) means that the ones that are already wealthy will get even more money and inequality will get worse.

It appears that Norway has no problem with the very wealthy leaving the country.

This seems a good role model

Norway imposes an annual net wealth tax on the worldwide assets of its tax residents.For the 2026 tax year, the tax is levied at a combined rate of 1.0% on net wealth exceeding NOK 1.9 million (approximately $178,000 USD):0.65% goes to the state0.35% goes to the municipalityNet wealth is calculated by deducting your total debt from the total market value of your assets (e.g., bank accounts, properties, vehicles, and shares). While assets are assessed at their true market value, several categories enjoy significant discounts, such as a 75% discount on the assessed value of primary residences

Google

A wealth tax says what it is a tax of the very wealthy, millionaires who should be paying more into the system, which would bring in billions to help pay for our public services. It's exactly what this country needs and should be doing.
Other countries tax very wealthy much higher than UK. It's not true that they would leave if countries tax them as they should be taxed, no problem.

Some millionaires are calling on government to tax their wealth.

Tax the very wealthy.

Fallingstar

Yes.
The very rich pay very little in comparison with what they have and the likes of most of us pay a lot compared with what we have.
Unfair.

Exactly this !

I'm still not sure that some sort of extra tax on those who are already contributing an out of proportion amount of tax will work. We need something more sophisticated.
Stimulating the economy to produce more, well paid jobs, would be a good start but easier said than done. However, increasing NI on jobs has had an obvious deleterious effect. Increasing tax on trading and on savings won't work either.

Yes we need a focus on some sort of wealth tax.

The gap between the richest in society and the poorest has grown exponentially. We can not allow that direction of travel to continue so sone recalibration is needed.

I loved his analogy, and a simple yes from me.

eazybee

No.
Cut the Welfare Bill.

How very unkind

MaizieD

M0nica

I have. Just because he wrote it, I do not have to accept it. I can think of several books that were very influential in their time and were proved to be totally wrong.

I'd agree with you if he were an economic theorist. But I respect thorough pure research.

That still does not mean it is correct and he has many influential critics.