Tax on wealth suggested

itwasntme001

eskbanker said:

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....

I already corrected myself in saying I meant easier and not easy.  Easier to implement because it is more palatable if it is globally coordinated.  Therefore easier = more palatable.

itwasntme001

Stubod said:

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

They already do.

TBC15

How about introducing a new tax everyone would feel relaxed about paying.

Legalise and tax marijuana.

itwasntme001

itwasntme001 said:

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.

Oh and how could I have forgotten.  We have also just had a massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the asset owners and the old and to the big tech company owners.  Due to the stimulus following a government induced shutdown of the world economy.  That is a massive wealth transfer probably never seen by the world before and perhaps never will again.

Thrugelmir

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.

Anybody who is truly wealthy lives in Monaco already and pays zero income tax. 

eskbanker

itwasntme001 said:

itwasntme001 said:

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.

Oh and how could I have forgotten.  We have also just had a massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the asset owners and the old and to the big tech company owners.  Due to the stimulus following a government induced shutdown of the world economy.  That is a massive wealth transfer probably never seen by the world before.

But using that sort of contrived and flimsy logic, anything can be contorted to fit a ridiculously broad definition of 'transfer of wealth' - I transferred some wealth in the local corner shop earlier when buying a pint of milk, so I should obviously expect that to form a blueprint for implementing a global wealth tax....

itwasntme001

eskbanker said:

itwasntme001 said:

itwasntme001 said:

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.

Oh and how could I have forgotten.  We have also just had a massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the asset owners and the old and to the big tech company owners.  Due to the stimulus following a government induced shutdown of the world economy.  That is a massive wealth transfer probably never seen by the world before.

But using that sort of contrived and flimsy logic, anything can be contorted to fit a ridiculously broad definition of 'transfer of wealth' - I transferred some wealth in the local corner shop earlier when buying a pint of milk, so I should obviously expect that to form a blueprint for implementing a global wealth tax....

You are taking it way out of context as usual.  It is clear as night and day that there has been a wealth transfer due to the stimulus packages.  The government (aka taxpayer) are in a massive amount of debt.  That money funded by the debt went to the corporate sector, mainly tech companies, as well as those on index linked pensions, those who own assets, the professional upper middle class (who can easily WFH whilst getting paid above median wages) etc.

It is a bailout that disproportionately benefits them at the expense of everyone else.  And so it follows that they should disproportionately have to pay more of this debt back.  Hence a globally coordinated wealth tax makes a lot of sense and should be done.

You just paid for a pint of milk to have your morning Cheerios with.  No wealth transfer happening there.

zagfles

eskbanker said:

EdGasketTheSecond said:

The following article suggests a 'wealth tax' as a means to pay for covid. I hope we don't go down that road but there are obvious pitfalls like someone with a valuable house but no cash to pay the tax; how do you value defined benefit vs money-purchase pensions?

There are already well-established principles available for valuing pensions, but if you're looking for detail about these proposals rather than the BBC's summarised take on them, the full 126 page report is accessible at https://www.ukwealth.tax/s/A-Wealth-Tax-For-The-UK.pdf

Edit: DB pensions are to be valued via CETV according to section 4.2.3 of the report, among proposals for all the other valuation challenges:

For pensions, the process for defined contribution (DC) schemes would be similar to other financial assets. Defined benefit (DB) schemes are more complex, because unlike a DC scheme there is no fund assigned to the individual. However, there are nevertheless several existing purposes for which DB scheme providers must determine the current value of an individual’s future pension entitlements. The most appropriate measure for the purposes of a wealth tax would be the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV), following the guidance that is already published by the Pensions Regulator for the purpose of transfers between pension schemes. This approach has the important benefit of ensuring, so far as possible, horizontal equity between holders of DC and DB pensions.

The issue of lack of liquidity for settlement is discussed at length in section 4.2.4 - no doubt there will be matters that haven't been considered but liquidity and pension valuation clearly have!

They don't seem to have addressed how pensions in payment would be valued. Presumably not exempt, otherwise people old enough could just crystallise early and avoid totally!

If it's on pension value, could use the current value for DC, what for DB though, there is no CETV for DB pensions in payment. Maybe some estimate of what the CETV would be for the current annual pension at the member's age.

But if this is intended to be a short term tax for 5 years, it would massively discriminate against those close to retirement age, as their pension wealth is obviously at its peak, compare to those well before retirement or those well into retirement. 

What about the state pension - some current pensioners have substantial SERPS/S2P in their state pension, others have just the basic state pension and an occupational scheme. If the state pension is ignored but contracted out pensions aren't, another source of discrimination.

They've clearly not thought this through when it comes to pensions.

Linton

itwasntme001 said:

itwasntme001 said:

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.

Oh and how could I have forgotten.  We have also just had a massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the asset owners and the old and to the big tech company owners.  Due to the stimulus following a government induced shutdown of the world economy.  That is a massive wealth transfer probably never seen by the world before and perhaps never will again.

I think much of the government funded transfer of wealth to asset owners merely replaced a market and tax driven transfer which has been ongoing anyway but was put on hold thanks to lockdowns.

itwasntme001

Linton said:

itwasntme001 said:

itwasntme001 said:

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.

Oh and how could I have forgotten.  We have also just had a massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the asset owners and the old and to the big tech company owners.  Due to the stimulus following a government induced shutdown of the world economy.  That is a massive wealth transfer probably never seen by the world before and perhaps never will again.

I think much of the government funded transfer of wealth to asset owners merely replaced a market and tax driven transfer which has been ongoing anyway but was put on hold thanks to lockdowns.

But the stimulus package is a zero sum game so the increase in the indebtedness of governments had to go somewhere.  It ended up with the asset rich and the income rich.  So over time you would never have got the rise in assets and safety of high incomes compared to a stimulus driven economy.

E.g. the SDLT holiday was just a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the sellers of property.  No one sells or buys more just because there is a SDLT holiday.  It merely just brings purchases forward.  So the loss maker is the taxpayer.  The winners are the net sellers of property.