Poll on UK Wealth Tax

[practicaldreamer]

Was recently looking at the Glasgow Media Group (Glasgow University Media research) website (such as it is) and came across this call for a UK wealth tax. The rationale is explained in the link - but basically to pay off public debt.

     It states (in the link above) that "A YouGov poll from June 2010 suggested that 74% of the population would favour a one-off tax on the wealthiest 6 million people in Britain" - and so I wondered what percentage of the population of BitcoinTalk might agree with such a proposal ??

  
edit: another explanatory article here - as the Glasgow site seems slow

[Mike Christ]

Why punish success?

[tkbx]

I'm not sure how it works over there, but here in 'Murica, the more you raise taxes on the rich, the quicker they start moving to Mexico (where there are no government services and the government still has the common sense not to try to milk every last nickel and dime out of the rich).

[Mike Christ]

I'm not sure how it works over there, but here in 'Murica, the more you raise taxes on the rich, the quicker they start moving to Mexico (where there are no government services and the government still has the common sense not to try to milk every last nickel and dime out of the rich).

Either that or they raise prices to compensate, so people would have to further ask government to take over different aspects of business to prevent this from occurring.  This process repeats until government has total control over the economy and thus, totalitarian state.

[Lethn]

A one-off tax of the rich has strong public support and would solve the UK's economic crisis at a stroke

No it doesn't and no it won't.

The tax would be extremely popular. We commissioned a YouGov poll of over 2,000 people to test attitudes. There was very strong support, with 74% of the population approving (44% strongly approving).

Who did they gather exactly? Clearly people who had something against people being rich and wanted to take all their wealth from them, these political polls are always bullshit especially if you look at the actual maths behind them, 2000 people is no accurate measure of what a whole country thinks, i expect they added the 'over' part because they didn't want to let on just how few actually voted in such a stupid and selective poll.

Never mind the incredibly flawed political data, while you can argue that the rich could afford such a tax the government spends so much that even if you took away 90% of the wealth it still wouldn't be enough to pay off the debts and cover the inflation that the central bank and the U.K government is creating. Our government, much like most western governments are trying to dodge the main issues instead of dealing with the problem and are only wanting to take populist moves which is why they come up with these shitty ideas.

Now before silly UK politicals come along and try to accuse me of cosying up to the rich, I'm against all stupidly high taxes because the government should be forced to balance their budgets like everybody else, this is also why I support Bitcoin because if we can finally destroy fiat currencies, the only way a government will be able to spend beyond their means is through borrowing and that will force them to default quicker.

[EvilPanda]

A one-off tax of the rich has strong public support and would solve the UK's economic crisis at a stroke

No it doesn't and no it won't.

The tax would be extremely popular. We commissioned a YouGov poll of over 2,000 people to test attitudes. There was very strong support, with 74% of the population approving (44% strongly approving).

Who did they gather exactly? Clearly people who had something against people being rich and wanted to take all their wealth from them, these political polls are always bullshit especially if you look at the actual maths behind them, 2000 people is no accurate measure of what a whole country thinks, i expect they added the 'over' part because they didn't want to let on just how few actually voted in such a stupid and selective poll.

Never mind the incredibly flawed political data, while you can argue that the rich could afford such a tax the government spends so much that even if you took away 90% of the wealth it still wouldn't be enough to pay off the debts and cover the inflation that the central bank and the U.K government is creating. Our government, much like most western governments are trying to dodge the main issues instead of dealing with the problem and are only wanting to take populist moves which is why they come up with these shitty ideas.

Now before silly UK politicals come along and try to accuse me of cosying up to the rich, I'm against all stupidly high taxes because the government should be forced to balance their budgets like everybody else, this is also why I support Bitcoin because if we can finally destroy fiat currencies, the only way a government will be able to spend beyond their means is through borrowing and that will force them to default quicker.

They didn't have to gather people who have something against the rich.
Only less then 10% is considered rich so if you pick a bunch of random people for your poll at least 50% of them will always support income tax. Why? Because they envy the rich, hope they will support the country and pay all the expenses, that's how communism was built.
I'm not rich, but I'll never support income tax.

[bryant.coleman]

Why punish success?

Tell that to the retards who call for wealth redistribution.

[Lethn]

A one-off tax of the rich has strong public support and would solve the UK's economic crisis at a stroke

No it doesn't and no it won't.

The tax would be extremely popular. We commissioned a YouGov poll of over 2,000 people to test attitudes. There was very strong support, with 74% of the population approving (44% strongly approving).

Who did they gather exactly? Clearly people who had something against people being rich and wanted to take all their wealth from them, these political polls are always bullshit especially if you look at the actual maths behind them, 2000 people is no accurate measure of what a whole country thinks, i expect they added the 'over' part because they didn't want to let on just how few actually voted in such a stupid and selective poll.

Never mind the incredibly flawed political data, while you can argue that the rich could afford such a tax the government spends so much that even if you took away 90% of the wealth it still wouldn't be enough to pay off the debts and cover the inflation that the central bank and the U.K government is creating. Our government, much like most western governments are trying to dodge the main issues instead of dealing with the problem and are only wanting to take populist moves which is why they come up with these shitty ideas.

Now before silly UK politicals come along and try to accuse me of cosying up to the rich, I'm against all stupidly high taxes because the government should be forced to balance their budgets like everybody else, this is also why I support Bitcoin because if we can finally destroy fiat currencies, the only way a government will be able to spend beyond their means is through borrowing and that will force them to default quicker.

They didn't have to gather people who have something against the rich.
Only less then 10% is considered rich so if you pick a bunch of random people for your poll at least 50% of them will always support income tax. Why? Because they envy the rich, hope they will support the country and pay all the expenses, that's how communism was built.
I'm not rich, but I'll never support income tax.

I'm not rich either and it irks me I have to say that because I know there are pricks out there particularly here in the UK who do the American thing in politics of either acting like you're either with us or against us or if you believe one thing then you must be a member of 'that' party. As far taxes, it would be great if we could get rid of them entirely but I would settle for a 10% - 15% flat tax rate, this would force governments to spend wisely and a flat tax would mean there aren't any loopholes for people to whine about.

[TheEmperor]

A one-off tax of the rich has strong public support and would solve the UK's economic crisis at a stroke

No it doesn't and no it won't.

The tax would be extremely popular. We commissioned a YouGov poll of over 2,000 people to test attitudes. There was very strong support, with 74% of the population approving (44% strongly approving).

Who did they gather exactly? Clearly people who had something against people being rich and wanted to take all their wealth from them, these political polls are always bullshit especially if you look at the actual maths behind them, 2000 people is no accurate measure of what a whole country thinks, i expect they added the 'over' part because they didn't want to let on just how few actually voted in such a stupid and selective poll.

Never mind the incredibly flawed political data, while you can argue that the rich could afford such a tax the government spends so much that even if you took away 90% of the wealth it still wouldn't be enough to pay off the debts and cover the inflation that the central bank and the U.K government is creating. Our government, much like most western governments are trying to dodge the main issues instead of dealing with the problem and are only wanting to take populist moves which is why they come up with these shitty ideas.

Now before silly UK politicals come along and try to accuse me of cosying up to the rich, I'm against all stupidly high taxes because the government should be forced to balance their budgets like everybody else, this is also why I support Bitcoin because if we can finally destroy fiat currencies, the only way a government will be able to spend beyond their means is through borrowing and that will force them to default quicker.

Completely agree with all of the above.

One of my family members is a millionaire, he worked the last 50 years to get where he is, grafting to the top from the poor working class docks of Birkenhead and now, because people are envious, he should pay a shit load of his life's work to support them and clear their debt? If so much of the UK wasn't so reliant on state hand outs and living on credit, the debt and deficit wouldn't be what it is today. That and labours reckless borrowing and lack of regulatory enforcement of the banks.

Now, legalising weed and prostitution, regulating and taxing, that's an idea I can get behind. Not because I want to do any of these things, but it will save a hell of a lot of police time so they can tackle crime that is really detrimental to society, and guarantee an almost never ending revenue stream.



Edit: Spelling

[medUSA]

We have a national debt of over £1 trillion because we have a budget deficit every year. A 20% wealth tax is not going to solve the structural problem, it will only force entrepreneurs and investors out.

[Ekaros]

Higher taxation to rich doesn't hurt them or stop them from making money.

Still one of wealth tax might be massively problematic to implement. How do you value wealth? Stocks? If people taxed don't have cash on hand they are forced to sell some and if this is wide practise it will affect the markets...

All in all it's structural issue and there is no simple easy solutions in long term...

[Sindelar1938]

Wealth taxes are usually done with good intentions but create distortions and moral hazards that take long to fix

[TheEmperor]

Yes it would, and a 20% tax would pay a big chunk. The article gives the total personal wealth in the UK as ~£9tn, of which the top 10% own ~£4tn. The national debt is £1.37tn (~88% GDP). A 20% tax on that 4tn would reduce the debt to £0.57tn (~36% GDP) - the lowest proportion since 2002, just before the Iraq war.

The 90% tax that you refer to on the other hand (a yield of £3.6tn!) would of course pay the entire debt (£1.4tn) with enough left over to triple the education budget for 10 years (£1.6tn) and buy every man, woman and child in the country a second-hand Ford Fiesta (~£600bn).

How do you think governments spend beyond their means at the moment? I'm afraid it's already mainly by borrowing, and they haven't defaulted yet.

I'm sorry but your first point is utter moot. If someone has all their wealth tied up in property, cars, land, whatever, yet their salary is only 50k a year, where exactly is this extra 20% going to come from? Especially considering they will already be paying tax on any property, cars, land, as well as a higher tax rate than the a lot of the UK. Someone's wealth on paper is completely different to how much fiat they hold to be able to pay, for example, another 20% tax. The only way this would be done if buy taxing earnings even more, which is a complete different measure to taxing somebody's, 'wealth'.

While your right on the second point. Saying they haven't defaulted yet isn't exactly a measure of faith or trust. Both UK and more recently, the US have come very close to defaulting. Another crisis on the scale of the most recent one or worse would, without a shadow of a doubt, bust all major western economy's, and you might not have to wait for this as long as you may think. The gravy train has to stop some when!

[EvilPanda]

Yes it would, and a 20% tax would pay a big chunk. The article gives the total personal wealth in the UK as ~£9tn, of which the top 10% own ~£4tn. The national debt is £1.37tn (~88% GDP). A 20% tax on that 4tn would reduce the debt to £0.57tn (~36% GDP) - the lowest proportion since 2002, just before the Iraq war.

The 90% tax that you refer to on the other hand (a yield of £3.6tn!) would of course pay the entire debt (£1.4tn) with enough left over to triple the education budget for 10 years (£1.6tn) and buy every man, woman and child in the country a second-hand Ford Fiesta (~£600bn).

How do you think governments spend beyond their means at the moment? I'm afraid it's already mainly by borrowing, and they haven't defaulted yet.

I'm sorry but your first point is utter moot. If someone has all their wealth tied up in property, cars, land, whatever, yet their salary is only 50k a year, where exactly is this extra 20% going to come from? Especially considering they will already be paying tax on any property, cars, land, as well as a higher tax rate than the a lot of the UK. Someone's wealth on paper is completely different to how much fiat they hold to be able to pay, for example, another 20% tax. The only way this would be done if buy taxing earnings even more, which is a complete different measure to taxing somebody's, 'wealth'.

While your right on the second point. Saying they haven't defaulted yet isn't exactly a measure of faith or trust. Both UK and more recently, the US have come very close to defaulting. Another crisis on the scale of the most recent one or worse would, without a shadow of a doubt, bust all major western economy's, and you might not have to wait for this as long as you may think. The gravy train has to stop some when!

You're right. Higher taxes mean higher unemployment and slower economy growth. There were numerous people in the past, who wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor, it never ended good.

@PhydeauxLeChien basically what you're proposing is to give more money to the government, because they know how to spend it. It's for the greater good right? If they have more money, they can cover pensions and benefits, help all those poor people who don't know what to do with their lives. Thats some real commie bullshit.

[EvilPanda]

Basically what you're proposing is to give more money to the government, because they know how to spend it. It's for the greater good right? If they have more money, they can cover pensions and benefits, help all those poor people who don't know what to do with their lives. Thats some real commie bullshit.

Uh huh. You'll notice that at the moment I'm not proposing any such thing, but yes - in general I believe in more progressive taxation. Regarding benefits, the vast majority of (non-communist) governments in the world have all cottoned on to the positive economic effects of supporting unemployed people long enough to find another job instead of letting them starve.

... and we have a paradox where the more hardworking and efficient you are, the more taxes you have to pay, while drunkards and teen parents get their benefits This also causes migration of the most lazy societies, like Gypsies, to countries with the best social care (currently Germany and UK).

[TheEmperor]

No, they haven't. In the US for example they get together every now and then and have a big fight over raising the debt ceiling, with elephants and donkeys both playing chicken over choosing to default but as you say, actually defaulting would bust all major western economies - so they won't. The only way they could be forced to default is if they literally could not find some-one who would lend them enough money to make interest payments, which is laughably implausible - the US has a credit rating of AAA and the UK has AA+, which in layman's terms means that everyone and their mum are falling over themselves to lend money to either country.

This is a completely separate issue from the many actual problems caused by a high national debt, and I think paying it down should be a priority, but these apocalyptic "we'll default and the banks will come and claim their money by threatening pensioners with pointy sticks" scenarios are highly silly.

Uh huh. You'll notice that at the moment I'm not proposing any such thing, but yes - in general I believe in more progressive taxation. Regarding benefits, the vast majority of (non-communist) governments in the world have all cottoned on to the positive economic effects of supporting unemployed people long enough to find another job instead of letting them starve.

Well for a start your wrong there. S&P's US ratings are AA+/A-1+ with a stable short to medium outlook and AA+ with a negative long term outlook, citing political risk and rising debt burden. So in reply to your point, the US is actually going to find it harder to acquire credit, and the credit they do get will carry heavier interest rates, therefore increasing debt in the long term and in turn the risk of a default.

Also to add, if the US had to bail out the banks and big industry again, it would bankrupt the country and there wouldn't be much they could do. Bail out to save jobs and some sort of economy, print more money in turn devalue the currency in turn increasing debt, hyperinflation, whole world of trouble. Not bail out, cause mass unemployment as never seen before, loose large chunks of industry, massive deflation, whole world of trouble. See where this is going?

I wonder how many federal workers are as optimistic as you over their governments finances?

Regarding your last point, that's all well and good until you end up with a situation like in Britain where the native population have generations used to living on handouts and so have no incentive to get a job and the jobs that are available are given to immigrants who come here and work for cheaper. While obviously immigrants contribute in taxes they all send a lot of money back to their native country's so more money is leaving the country than going back into the system and meanwhile the lazy benefit takers do less, getting fatter and unhealthier and adding an additional strain on the already stretched health service.

Tell me how either of these scenarios is sustainable?

[EvilPanda]

The idea that all you have to do to get rich is be "hardworking" is ridiculous. Social mobility in the UK is appalling, and the majority of people who are very well off were born into wealth. Sure, if you're poor, you were lucky enough to be born smart, you break your back working for 50 years, gain skills, spend frugally, invest correctly, then you can be a millionaire, but I guarantee you had to work a lot harder than some-one who was privately educated and given their first job and some seed investment money by Dad.

A great example of why I'll never understand the lefties.

This guy had it all served on a silver platter, it can't be like that! He has to share! It's our job to force equality! Viva la revolucion!

[bitcasino]

What about a one-off tax of 20% on the Royal family? 

[TheEmperor]

I was reading Moody's / Fitch. In any case, AA+ still implies a very good investment and very cheap rates. I'm not arguing that ever-increasing debt is sustainable or a good idea, just that neither country is even close to defaulting.

The native population have generations used to living on handouts and so have no incentive to get a job and the jobs that are available are given to immigrants who come here and work for cheaper. While obviously immigrants contribute in taxes they all send a lot of money back to their native country's so more money is leaving the country than going back into the system and meanwhile the lazy benefit takers do less, getting fatter and unhealthier and adding an additional strain on the already stretched health service.

Jokes aside, this is an incredibly pervasive set of misconceptions. The majority of welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the majority of other benefits go to people who are in work, on low pay. The majority of unemployment benefits go to the short-term (temporary) unemployed, leaving a small proportion for the long-term unemployed - an unknown proportion of whom presumably are fat and lazy.

This guy had it all served on a silver platter, it can't be like that! He has to share! It's our job to force equality! Viva la revolucion!

I don't believe in equality of outcome, but I do believe in equality of opportunity - all children should have equal opportunity to be successful, no matter who their parents were. If you had it all served on a silver platter then yes, you have a duty to make it easier for those who didn't.

Well I'm happy for you, PhydeauxLeChien, that you have such a positive outlook with regard to western economy's.

May I ask where you live? While yes I may be wrong to say fat and lazy so genericly, it also exemplifies the type of people I am referring to. Certainly not pensioners or people that need subsidies to get by even when they are working, and I think you know that. I was talking about a select group, which is undeniable. There are places in this country where 3, 3! generations of the same family have never had a job, and many more that have simply realised that it is more lucrative to have kids and sit at home than to work. And I say this from experience, I grew up on a council estate, I personally know people like this now from where I'm from to where I live now, to where I work now. So these are not pervasive misconceptions, these are observational facts.

Just to add, I do not have a problem with immigration or migrant workers, but it is a proven fact that immigration in the UK is at unsustainable levels and that a large proportion of available jobs are being taken by migrant workers.


I'm sorry, but if I work my ass off to become a millionaire, and then leave it to my child so that he can have a more comfortable life than I have had, not have to go through the shit I did, why on earth would it be their 'duty' to make it easier for someone else? Nobody would have done it for me yet I still made myself a success and passed it to my child, so in practicality I would have done what you asked, but because it's my blood and not a stranger it doesn't count?

[TheEmperor]

What about a one-off tax of 20% on the Royal family? 

Meh, 20% of fuck all is fuck all.

How about closing the tax loop holes for corporations and conglomerates?!