Tax on wealth suggested

coyrls

Maybe you should have said impossible.

itwasntme001

Nothing is impossible.  We had a new global monetary system in 1971.  We had the plaza accord in the 80s.  We had a globally coordinated effort to come back from the GFC in 2008.  Things can be done quite easily if well coordinated, especially under pressure.

Mickey666

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

 That BBC article also states that the top 1% of earners pay 29% of all income tax and the top 5% pay 50% of all income tax.   I guess the question is how progressive can we be while still being ‘fair’.  

 The 1% and 5% pay a high percentage of all income tax because they are so wealthy. 
How does the percentage of their income paid in tax compare to the rate paid by the majority of the country?

Er, yes, which is the whole point isn’t it?  To push the tax burden onto the wealthy.  

Unless they engage in various tax avoidance schemes, our current progressive system means that someone earning, say, £1m will pay a higher % of their income in tax than someone earning, say, £30k.  Whether that is ‘fair’ will depend on your POV.  My point was that the majority of people will likely think it is ‘fair’ because higher taxes for very high earners has no impact on them personally.

I wish I could find the link to where I saw it but I’ve read that unless someone in the U.K. earns less than an average of £45k-ish over their working life then they will not pay their way and have effectively been subsidised - ie received ‘benefits’ throughout their life.  The calculation was based on counting all the things we all receive ‘for free’ vs the taxes we pay over our lifetime, thus      things like education, healthcare, public infrastructure, state pension etc - all the things we benefit from vs all the taxes that pay for it.  £45k (ish) was the break even point, ie above the median U.K. income, implying that the majority of people are subsidised by the wealthy.  Interesting I thought.

eskbanker

itwasntme001 said:

eskbanker said:

itwasntme001 said:

And for the wealth tax to work well enough without harming the economy, it needs to be a globally coordinated wealth tax so that it applies to all citizens in the developed world.  Since most developed countries are in a lot of debt, it should be pretty easy to implement.

Eh?  You seriously think that implementing a "globally coordinated wealth tax" would be easy - are you Liam Fox by any chance?!

Maybe I should have said easier.  It would be easier to implement as opposed to being the only country to impose it, since it will drive people out of the country.

If you mean that it would be more palatable for it to be implemented across multiple countries to reduce wealth protection-inspired emigration then yes, but that's a very different concept from ease of implementation, when it clearly wouldn't be easy by any measure!

coyrls

Nothing is impossible.  We had a new global monetary system in 1971.  We had the plaza accord in the 80s.  We had a globally coordinated effort to come back from the GFC in 2008.  Things can be done quite easily if well coordinated, especially under pressure.

None of your examples are global personal taxes and you won't be able to find any.

itwasntme001

eskbanker said:

itwasntme001 said:

eskbanker said:

itwasntme001 said:

And for the wealth tax to work well enough without harming the economy, it needs to be a globally coordinated wealth tax so that it applies to all citizens in the developed world.  Since most developed countries are in a lot of debt, it should be pretty easy to implement.

Eh?  You seriously think that implementing a "globally coordinated wealth tax" would be easy - are you Liam Fox by any chance?!

Maybe I should have said easier.  It would be easier to implement as opposed to being the only country to impose it, since it will drive people out of the country.

If you mean that it would be more palatable for it to be implemented across multiple countries to reduce wealth protection-inspired emigration then yes, but that's a very different concept from ease of implementation, when it clearly wouldn't be easy by any measure!

easier = more palatable.

eskbanker

itwasntme001 said:

eskbanker said:

itwasntme001 said:

eskbanker said:

itwasntme001 said:

And for the wealth tax to work well enough without harming the economy, it needs to be a globally coordinated wealth tax so that it applies to all citizens in the developed world.  Since most developed countries are in a lot of debt, it should be pretty easy to implement.

Eh?  You seriously think that implementing a "globally coordinated wealth tax" would be easy - are you Liam Fox by any chance?!

Maybe I should have said easier.  It would be easier to implement as opposed to being the only country to impose it, since it will drive people out of the country.

If you mean that it would be more palatable for it to be implemented across multiple countries to reduce wealth protection-inspired emigration then yes, but that's a very different concept from ease of implementation, when it clearly wouldn't be easy by any measure!

easier = more palatable.

No, there's a big difference between something being easier to sell as a high level concept and easy to implement at a detailed level, I refer you back to Liam Fox....

itwasntme001

coyrls said:

None of your examples are global personal taxes and you won't be able to find any.

In name maybe not, but those examples were some form of transfer of wealth, which a wealth tax essentially is.

New monetary system = transfer of wealth from foreign countries to the US as Nixon closed the gold window thus effectively defaulting on its promises.

Plaza Accord = Transfer of wealth from Japan and Germany to the US, by using currency intervention to improve US's competitiveness.

GFC = transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the global financial elite.

Linton

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

 That BBC article also states that the top 1% of earners pay 29% of all income tax and the top 5% pay 50% of all income tax.   I guess the question is how progressive can we be while still being ‘fair’.  

 The 1% and 5% pay a high percentage of all income tax because they are so wealthy. 
How does the percentage of their income paid in tax compare to the rate paid by the majority of the country?

Er, yes, which is the whole point isn’t it?  To push the tax burden onto the wealthy.  

Unless they engage in various tax avoidance schemes, our current progressive system means that someone earning, say, £1m will pay a higher % of their income in tax than someone earning, say, £30k.  Whether that is ‘fair’ will depend on your POV.  My point was that the majority of people will likely think it is ‘fair’ because higher taxes for very high earners has no impact on them personally.

I wish I could find the link to where I saw it but I’ve read that unless someone in the U.K. earns less than an average of £45k-ish over their working life then they will not pay their way and have effectively been subsidised - ie received ‘benefits’ throughout their life.  The calculation was based on counting all the things we all receive ‘for free’ vs the taxes we pay over our lifetime, thus      things like education, healthcare, public infrastructure, state pension etc - all the things we benefit from vs all the taxes that pay for it.  £45k (ish) was the break even point, ie above the median U.K. income, implying that the majority of people are subsidised by the wealthy.  Interesting I thought.

Perhaps if the discussion was in terms of the distribution of Net Income rather than the distribution of the reduction from gross due to taxes there would be a different view of "fairness".

Stubod

..perhaps they should just get Amazon and the like to pay the going tax rate?