Can We Tax The Rich?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- "it's progress we're even talking about this because when i first started talking about tax what i would often get back is you can't tax rich people rich people are the lifeblood of the economy it's very important for the economy that don't tax rich people i think it's becoming increasingly obvious to people that what is happening with the economy now is not working um the vast majority of people want something done about inequality"
SUBSCRIBE, SHARE & START A CONVERSATION
SOCIAL MEDIA:
WEBSITE - www.wealtheconomics.org
TWITTER - @garyseconomics - / garyseconomics
FACEBOOK - @garyseconomics - / garyseconomics
INSTAGRAM - @garyseconomics - / garyseconomics
TIKTOK - @garyseconomics - www.tiktok.com/@garyseconomic...
CZcams - @garyseconomics - / @garyseconomics
Performed by Gary Stevenson
GARYSECONOMICS
Produced by Simran Mohan
MOHAN MEDIA
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Intro & Titles
00:25 - Progress
01:00 - Can we tax them?
03:10 - Roman Abrhamovic
03:53 - The Current Tax System
04:40 - They own our country
05:30 - Why don't we tax them?
06:19 - We can do it!
So true. When gov says we can't impose a windfall tax on the richest or raise the taxes on the wealthiest 1% because they won't invest here or they will leave, it's a load of rubbish. Let them leave if they want.
Exactly! If they leave they will make a room for smaller businesses. Win win
Lol so you want mass unemployment? And inefficient company around
There will be plenty of opportunity for business as people will always want to make their lives better and make money.
To change tax laws you will need the power to do so, either through influence or election. Around 32 million people vote at each election (65% turnout, 50 million eligible). If you can persuade five to ten million eligible voters that a wealth tax is a good idea, then it will happen.
We need you & people like you to run this Country. We’ll never improve things with the current system and shambles or Gov. keep it going Gary. 👌🏻
Says everything about this country that this guy isn't all over the MSM. An expert that speaks absolute sense - more of it please!
Gary I really like the content of your videos. I really do learn a lot about Economics from you in terms that I can understand. Please keep more content coming!!!!!! Could you do a video on wage stagnation and the idea that some people argue that a wage increase would increase inflation??
It's finally warm enough for the coat to come off! 😀
Seriously; thanks for articulating what should be obvious but strangely doesn't seem to be. Being a bit radical, we really do need to overhaul our entire tax system.
A Professor of Economics once said:”The reason why people left the EU is because the people are not educated.” It’s the same reason why the people in this country are not educated when it comes to basic economics. Nice Gary. Keep up with the great work. 😎
The people are not only not educated, they/we are MISEDUCATED aka lied to. Consistently.
Bravo! You are articulating something very fundamental. If we don’t deal with this everything gets worse.
These type of discussions really show the people who are incredibly ignorant about money.
The majority of people you would consider wealthy are small business owners. So let me ask you this slick. If my businesses electric bill and insurance cost and cost of rent and water goes up what do I do? I don't do a damn thing but raise prices. That's how business has worked since the 1st Olive was sold to somebody.
So now as a business owner, let's say my taxes go up. It doesn't really matter if it's a large amount or a small amount. What am I gonna do? The exact same thing. I'm going to raise my prices. So let me connect the dots for you people who aren't bright enough to already see what's going to happen…. It's going to be everyday consumers that are going to get hit with the tax increase. As they say, be careful what you wish for.
If you don't believe me, you might want to compare the cost of living in the United States to Western Europe. True, the wages are much higher there. What nobody wants to tell you is that the reason that wages are higher there is because people pay significantly more in taxes. A perfect example is that the reason cars cost 30% more it's because businesses pay significantly more to their employees who have to pay those taxes. You people clearly do not get it.
Hi Tyrone
Your response to me was on the arrogant and condescending end of possibility. That didn’t endear you to me. It is possible to express disagreement without being insulting.
I think it is you who is not understanding. Have you listened to Gary’s videos? He is not talking about small business people. He is talking about billionaires who have become so rich mostly by owning assets. If you own assets in the form of property for example you charge people to use that property via rents. You charge however much you can get away with. Hence UK rents are the highest in Europe by a long way. It’s not about passing on costs it’s about price gouging because you can. And you can because the financial system is set up to benefit those with assets and penalise those without. Gary is talking about taxing the rich to rebalance the system. That means ending the conditions where such profiteering can take place. That is perfectly doable except those who benefit from this are in charge. That’s the problem. But there are more of us and if we can organise we can change things. That’s all he is saying and I agree.
I found your analysis unconvincing. If you reply to this I would appreciate more research, better arguments and less arrogance and rudeness.
@@peterscott6818
I'm always amazed that people like you come around looking for your handout after "the rich" have realized all the risk, all the liability, all the expense, all the uncertainty, dealt with all the regulatory BS, all the effort, all the hurdles.
In the US, we had hundreds of thousands of business is closed because of covid. Why don't you share a post with me where you said Hey, let's help some of these business owners save their business because the vast majority of them have every penny in their life tied up in them and afterwards we'll still have jobs. Show me one time where you posted anything remotely close to that sentiment.
Here's the hilarious part. I am a landlord. I own an apartment building in Florida. This is what people like you who are so blinded by your bias and your own self serving attitude don't realize…... Literally every expense I had associated with that building increased this year. The insurance company who covered the building actually pulled out of Florida so that meant I had to find another insurance company. It took 4 months. That wasn't the bad part. The premium is almost 3 times what the previous insurance company charged. I can go on to talk about tax increases, the cost of utilities, the cost of supplies, the cost of every vendor who does work there and on and on and on but that would be a waste because people with your mentality don't get it and will never get it. If you think the increases I'm talking about are minimal you are incorrect. The insurance increase alone was over $500 a month And I can guarantee you that will increase next year and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that.
Let me guess, you think if somebody gets hurt on the property and I get sued, the tenants are gonna chip in and help me cover the deductibles? Do you think they're going to say Hey, the water bill on the property went up so we're gonna use less water? Do you think they're gonna say Hey, we're sorry we never changed the air filter for the air conditioner which cost about a dollar, and you had to pay $5 000 to have it replaced.. No, none of that happens. But people like you don't get it. You think everybody with any kind of asset is just rolling in money and they can afford to absorb whatever kind of price increase comes along or whatever kind of loss happens. All you're doing is showing that you are an absolute loser expecting everybody else to carry you.
The other thing you don't understand is that by increasing taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no impact whatsoever on your life. Do you think the government is gonna start sending you checks? Unless you're some welfare loser that's not gonna happen. Do you think they're going to do what lower your utility bill, lower your rent, lower your car payment. Taxes on the wealthy have nothing to do with you. All they are is another way for the government to get more money to piss away.
Maybe I'm wrong. Tell me what increasing my taxes is going to do to benefit you DIRECTLY in concrete ways not some flowery, esoteric nonsensical pointless rambling.
How dare you tell me about ‘people like me’. You know nothing about me and your second post was even more insulting than the first. I presume you will be even worse with a third.
I won’t be replying if you do. It’s clear you are not interested in dialogue just in handing out insults. You are entitled to your opinion. Please don’t bother me with it again. I’m not interested.
@@peterscott6818
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
I'm sure there are free tissues somewhere.
Gary, thank you for this epic content! One question I have is: How do you stop the super rich hiding their wealth through complex company structures?
Another banging video! Good to see the channel growing
A land value tax (particularly in conjunction with planning reform) would do so much for this country.
I'd be interested to see a video on it. And I wonder how it might intersect with a more general wealth tax.
A tax on assets already exists. If the assets generates income it's income tax. If the asset pays a dividend it's dividend tax. If the asset increases in value then capital gains tax is paid when the asset is sold. Just set tax levels appropriately and make sure people pay what they owe.
that's probably where the problem is - closing tax loopholes.
Yes, we can definitely tax the rich! Unfortunately Tories will never do that. They will always tax the low/middle income - and earn so much money- because there's somannny of us!!!
So, people need to stop voting Tory!
@@wandalozinska3451 Tax the rich?? It will be the 70's all over again, mass unemployment, high inflation and rich people will move out. France had a wealth tax, they had to get rid of it as so many people just left...
Thank you for that. It was like someone turning on a lightbulb in my head. It's much appreciated.
I love your very clear explanations. Hope that many others will share them widely. Many thanks for taking the trouble to inform us.
Excellent piece Gary- articulate and accurate. You have a new subscriber & avid follower who values facts, truth and integrity above all.
Look forward to more 👍🙏🏼
I agree you can't move a football club, but you can move the company to another country.
If some high earners leave so be it they will gladly be replaced by others, the idea that there isn't a super abundance of equally talented poorer people is absurd.
Simple, objective and correct 👏👏
Best video yet Gary!
And outlaw or regulate trust funds as well as abolishing tax havens such as the BVI’s. What about codifying Environmental Sustainable Governance and charging any company that operates in the UK proportionally to their ESG score with no ability to ‘write off’ this form of tax.
Excellent.
Same with the housing crisis. "We're working on it but it's a really complicated". No, not really. Set a wealth tax, build homes, simples.
Spot on Gary 100%
Just found your channel Gary looking forward to seeing your videos 👍
In my mind, is sound easier to tax people with lot of money than taxing the people with none.
But that notion is complicated for our media right...
The rich like our money too much and if they leave then let them go but they don't get to come back when things get better.
They have got rich off our back so it's time they paid back for that life style
Spot on
So glad you're talking about this, very timely. Have you had an introduction to defi yet?
So, this begs the question - why don’t the government - especially Tory governments - not do this. My belief is that this is deliberate social engineering. The Tories want to keep the poor as poor as possible. If people are struggling just to survive, their energy is focused just on surviving, so the pose no threat to the establishment.
However, if wealth was more fairly distributed and poor people had more, they would become ambitious and - in time - become a threat to the established order that they currently own.
So, it’s not a question of limited resources but, instead, a question of political priorities.
Would you agree?
It's a complicated question and not all tories will have the same motivations. I think simplest answer is most Tory politicians and especially their donors are rich or very rich so are very comfortable with the status quo, so they wanna maintain it.
Nicely done. But, here's the next question? Once the taxes are raised on assets of the wealthy, do they embrace the loss or do they pass it down to the people who are using the asset that was just taxed? What does the increase do to the middle and working class? I'm all for taxing everything and everyone who uses the resources of a country but we need to do it judiciously without massive repercussions for the ordinary person trying to get by. Flat Tax?
We would need to introduce something like a price cap to stop them from passing on increased taxes onto consumers.
Gary, you're the man!
👏👏👏👏👏
👍🍻 Gary ✊
Thank you for another informative video. Gary, when you say the assets could be sold to us, how does this work in principle?
I agree with everything you said in this video but... how are we going to make sure that politicians don't embezzle this money, what kind of laws should we enforce to lower corruption in government?
I genuinely don't know how we would do that.
it's not a matter of can but a matter of should and YES, we should
There is some more info on this topic over at the World Inequality Lab channel, in the video "UN Tax Convention Conference 14-15 March 2024, Day 1 - Keynote Gabriel Zucman".
One aspect of this I'm really interested in is tax on debt as an asset. I adore the idea - as in, if you're going to rentseek from someone based on their need to have a roof over their head, you have to pay tax for that priviliege. That said, we've heard the phrase about the economic house of cards, which as I understand is heavily tied up in the world of debt. If it became taxable as an asset, what would happen to the house of cards? Similarly just with house prices, if houses became tax liabilities - not just when they were sold but when they were simply held as assets - would that not risk a collapse of house prices, thereby reducing the one bit of wealth that some ordinary families do have and as such defeating the point? Don't get me wrong Gary, I absolutely LOVE that all this is starting to be talked about now - and I'm DELIGHTED that there are increasingly people like you in the world, who are standing up for stuff like this. (Thanks for the intro to Stephanie Brobbey the other day by the way, I'm following her now too). BUT - and I realise I'm probably looking too far ahead right now, from a relatively uninformed position - if these policies are going to be fought for, what potential unintended consequences would you say need to be anticpated and mitigated?
You kind of lose all credibility when the 1st comment you make is about taxing landlords. Do you think that landlord doesn't pay property tax? Do you think that landlord doesn't pay tax on every item they purchase to either improve or maintain that property? Do you think that landlord does not pay taxes on the revenue he receives from tenants?
The problem is, people like you are so locked into your position, you have no interest in learning the facts. What's even worse, you print bullshit like what just spilled out of your mouth and people actually believe it.
@@tyrone-tydavis5858 I wasn’t talking about landlords, I was talking about big banks and the mortgage debt market. I know I used the word ‘rentseek’ but I’m not talking about actual rent. Actually landlords with buy-to-let mortgages are often on the other side of this - as in landlords are the ones paying mortgage interest on the debt they owe to banks. What I’m interested in is the idea of banks paying tax on the mortgage debt they own.
@@RickProcterLane
Do you know anything about accounting? It appears you don't. How can you tax revenue that is not yet realized? That would be like your employer taxing you on your annual salary in January. What happens if you quit?
More specifically, to this point, what happens if the borrower goes bankrupt? What happens if the property is foreclosed on? I guess what, now we have to create another federal agency responsible for returning taxes to lenders on profits that weren't realized?
@@tyrone-tydavis5858 These are fair questions, and I’m not claiming to know many answers - but I am interested in further debate on this whole issue, hence my comment. In the case of foreclosure and bankrupt mortgage owners, surely the bank essentially gets the property title and their risk is mitigated that way? I’m really not getting at small businesses here, I’m getting at the oligopoly of banks - this whole “too big to fail” thing - and incidentally I’m in favour at least potentially of a wealth/asset tax replacing some income taxes.
@@RickProcterLane
My bigger overall question is......., if we tax the rich, what do you think happens to that money? Do you actually think the government is going to reduce your tax burden? Do you think they're going to somehow send you a check?
Here's what I think annoys most people who are against what you're talking about. My 1st real job out of college was as a consultant to the largest agency in one of the largest States in the US. I was hired to develop a pilot program to see if we could reduce costs in one of the agency's programs.
A consulting engagement which should have taken 6 months actually drug on for just over 2 years. The reason for that, literally every level of employee was kicking and screaming against every aspect of the aspect of the program and hindered every phase from fact finding to development to implementation to monitoring. At the end of the program we were able to reduce cost by 90%. That's not a typo. 90%. Every bit of the cost savings was due to eliminating redundancy, fraud and waste.
I'm not naive enough to think that this is the only agency in the only state where this is what's happening. The mindset of your typical government employee is one that the bigger my budget and the more people I have in my little system the more powerful I am. It's not their money they're spending. They absolutely positively could not care less. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. Towards the end of the year if departments have money left over they go into a feeding frenzy to make sure they spend it so their budget doesn't get reduced next year. The fact of the matter is it should be fucking illegal because it's no different than stealing.
I want to vomit every time I hear or read some unbelievably naive person talking about we need to raise anybody's taxes. I am of the firm belief you could cut everybody's taxes by 50% and nobody would miss a thing. Not one government service would need to be eliminated or even reduced. Think about my experience the next time someone talks to you about raising taxes. Hopefully, you'll want to vomit as well.
How do u tax their assets? How do u decide the value of the asset? What happens when the value of the asset loses money, do u give them money back?
I've been wondering about how a wealth tax could work, and if it's even a fair tax. This video clarifies that it's essentially a British assets tax, mainly property, which is what I expected. Now for part two: aren't these assets taxed already? Property owners pay tax on the their rents, companies pay corporation tax, and shareholder pay tax on both dividends and gains. All assets whose capital value could be caught by a wealth tax either are or could be taxed by other taxes that already exist, and that could be refined or expanded as necessary, so why the need for a wealth tax? If I were forced to come up with a proposal, it would be a back-up tax, in case the standard taxes are not doing their job. So if you own property, 1% a year wealth tax on the value, but an off-setting credit must be given for any tax you pay on rental profits in the same period. You would effectively pay the higher of the two taxes, not two independent taxes. The wealth tax would only raise extra money if it stopped people avoiding the taxes they are supposed to be subject to already?
As an alternative to a wealth-tax, how about gradually introducing a land-value tax? According to a youtube video I watched recently, this could ideally be the only tax a country needs.
I'm not a Brit so if you are, I admit that I can't accurately address your tax system. But if it's anything like America's, I guarantee you that the rich having "already been taxed on their assets" is bs. ALL income on earnings above $500K per year per person should should be taxed at the same rate, whether it's income from extra hours you worked at your job or a year-end bonus, or income from the increase in the value of your home, or income from your stock portfolio or business partnerships, or income from your rental properties, residential or commercial. But wages -- the earnings of people who work actually for a salary -- are ALWAYS taxed at higher rate than assets, the stuff rich people earn $$ from without doing a jot of work. THAT is patently wrong & rigged because all income increases a person's net worth, so why should richfolk's income be taxed at a lower rate than a working person's wages?
And once you get beyond the point of having enough income to pay your bills, live well & put a bit away for your children's future & your retirement years, ALL additional income above & beyond a set amount (I say $1 million per annum) should be taxed @ 20-25%. Then governments would have the $$ needed to provide universal health care, high-quality public schools, free secondary education, to subsidized solar/wind energy & get us off the oil teat, & all the other trappings of a civilized society. *So please stop simping for the rich!* A land-value tax won't touch the earnings that richfolks get from the stock market, which is where most of their wealth is grown. The reason housing is unaffordable for tens of millions of working people now is because of all the real estate speculation by rich people chasing profits. But housing is a human right, not an investment opportunity.
@@freedomfighter4990 The problems with taxing assets high is that people will move out to countries that does not have wealth tax. Also a tax on wealth is crippling for companies that would have to take out dividends just to pay the wealth tax, plus of course that triggers even more tax on the dividends themselves, creating an unfair advantage towards companies that does not have this problem. Many wealth people are wealthy because they own valuable companies, companies they have created taking huge risks, and they have been taxed ALL the way.
Great vid Gary. I understand how we could tax property and assets that can't be removed from the UK, but in this global economy how do we tax the means of production and financial assets? Isn't there a risk that these assets will simply be transferred to countries with lower tax regimes?
I would like if u also provided some data as you speak about different topics, like in what sort of assets do the rich keep their wealth in etc.
spread the word
Some interesting commentary and thoughts. What are your thoughts on companies moving their HQs out of the UK after Brexit? If we raised corporation tax, wouldn't we see more of that? I believe these big companies need to pay more tax, but if only a few countries raise corporation tax, the companies will just move to wherever the lower taxes are, or will create shell companies in tax havens and do all sorts of things to find loopholes and avoid paying. They also won't be incentivised to come here and bring jobs to the economy, so it is a double edged sword. It would be great to hear you talk more about that.
Genuine question: that's fine for assets that already exist, but this country has massively degraded infrastructure due to the last 40 years of Tory/Torly Lite rule and doesn't yet have enough of the infrastructure we need for things that didn't exist or weren't seen as important 40 years ago (e.g. 5G and renewable energy respectively). Is there not a danger that rich people will not invest in the things this country needs if they know they will need to pay high taxes on the assets created? We desperately need investment as our productivity per worker is starting to fall massively behind other developed countries.
I guess if we tax the rich on the assets they must keep here, then the government could invest in the infrastructure that we so desperately need. Also, gov could invest in skills and, with incoming new infrastructure, this would create an environment in which business will expect growth and be keen to invest (productivity would be boosted as a by-product). This would generate more tax revenue and in turn more investment in a self re-enforcing feedback mechanism. Just a thought on that
There should also be a carbon tax on the rich, considering they are responsible for environmental degradation and climate change.
Yes, because poor people don't drive cars, or wipe their ass with paper, or use plastic keyboards and computer monitors.... Get the point captain clueless?
How can your clear economics logic be communicated to the population Gary? The only way I can think of is if you team up with someone like Martyn Lewis and he does the 'Finance for Dummies' part and you do the 'Economics for Dummies' part and then the population could really see what a ride the establishment has taken them on.
Why has this only had 5k views.
How about taxing the proceeds(the 5%j of trust funds which are untaxed? How possible is it to arrange a very much higher rate of tax on unearned income?
We don’t tax the rich because they own the government as well as the country. 😭 How do we get around that one?
I love the Abramovich analogy. I hope you don't mind if I use it.
Go ahead boss
If we tax the assets of the rich, wouldn't they just increase the cost of us using those assets to offset the tax? Like when water companies increase charges to bill payers to pay for their fines and cover the years of corporate robbery.
Please explain how they own your mortgage?
Again, Wow.
I guess if it was monitored how much of the wealthy own and the state owns and if either to far out of balance we adjust.
Closing loopholes like Nondom and preventing low interest borrowing from investment sources in tax havens would be a start. Bonuses taxed at source would help. Progressive higher rate taxation would help. Tax cuts as pushed by the Tories are for the rich primarily. But all these taxes would target the rich whose income does not benefit the economy.
Taxing asset transfers should be taxed but offshore companies can sell off assets with absolutely no tax hit. All of these things must stop.
Is the economics model a reflection of human behaviour or does the economic model shape human behaviour? How do you change political will to adopt a less capitalist model?
Keep up the great work Gary,.please join up with Corbyn,trade unions etc & start a peaceful revolution,a new party for working ( class) & make a fairer society. # Enough is enough.God Bless.
There is a wealth tax in Spain where people pay on their declared worldwide assets, which works on a ladder system, why is this not possible in the U.K.?
It’s not possible because the Conservative government (or the Labour government if they ever get into power) won’t allow it.
There are also ways in which the rich in Spain mitigate taxes, Spanish tax is even more complicated than the UK... "catastral value" vs market value of property etc... Amancio Ortega (founder of Zara) is worth about $60bn according to Forbes.
laws provide equity, taxing assets is a bad idea, assets don't mean someone has money. They have to be sold by the holder to generate a taxable income. Taxing assets is an attack on private property.
If I have £20m in assets and you have zero - I'm pretty sure that I have money and you don't. There are exceptions of course but these are pretty rare.
Well said Gary totally breaking down right wing properganda 😎👍
Can this guy run for PM please
Gaaaarry
Land tax is the way to go. Try offshoring a hill!
"Who owns England?" Guy Shrubsole, 2019. Read it!
TAX the RICH they can leave their assets where they are.
Don't the rich people fund the political parties ? It's a bit like the NRA in America, who provide funds .
Wealth tax + income tax hike.
So how much of the wealth of these people is stocks and £/$?
Nope. It is time to mulch the rich.
I have a net worth of over a million dollars even though I work on air conditioning for a living, and live paycheck to paycheck. My house and my retirement investments have value, so are u gonna tax my assets too?
Yes
I don think so from what Gary has said in previous videos and talks. Its more the top 1% and super rich he's talking about.
You aren't in the 1% elite. We are talking multimillion- billionaires.
More than 25% of all income tax in UK is paid by the top 1% & over 90% of all UK income tax is paid by the top 50% of earners. (Source: Wikipedia).
True for income tax - but who works less and make much more money? People who work a 40 hour week and pay tax on their income? Or people who work much less than that (or not at all) and pay tax on money made from their wealth? Tax free allowance p.p. for income is £ 12, 750 and if you earn £ 20,000 you pay tax on the extra, even so you cannot live on it.
Your wealth can increase by many thousands every year and you pay nothing on it at all unless you sell the asset.
It would be nice to see a poor person gain office of power enough to bring about 'asset taxes' wealthy folk own. About time for a revolutionary new tax system.. 😉
I'm in total shock Ben Bradshaw MP for Exeter (Labour) net worth (Re google) is £119.8 Million
Can you tax a foreigner
Life blood? Leeches more like!
No you can't tax the rich.
It's just not possible.
Definitive!!
😩I hate this argument so much. It takes only the scratch of the surface to realize how asinine it it. 🤔
Thank you, Gary.
We can but we shouldnt. We should just nationalize their wealth and financial assets.
If the rich are taxed based on the property they own, won't they just pass on this cost to the tenants (i.e. the poor)?
Landlords already charge as much as they can.
The problem with "taxing the rich" is how precisely this can be done without creating many problems. Looking at how this is done in other countries regardless how it's done it has a lot of problems. Mainly people that own valuable assets will choose to leave if it done to harshly. In Norway for example all assets (property, cash, shares etc) is added up in the tax return, 150.000 pounds is deducted and the remaining is then taxed at around 1%. So if someone own 10 million pounds that person would have to pay 100k pounds every year regardless if their income is 1 pound or 2 million pounds, plus of course the income tax. So a Person in Norway that own 10 million but "only" earn 50k pounds would then typically pay over 125k in tax, even if their income is 50k. For many people this is a problem, as their money is tied up in assets that is not easy accessible. Many rich people in Norway choose to leave the country. Typically people that own valuable companies and would have to take out huge dividends to pay the tax bill, bear in mind they of course have to pay a lot of tax on the dividends as well, and their company will have a disadvantage compared to people that does not have this particular problem. So: PRECISELY how can this be done without creating further problems?
Where are they going to go, the moon?
@@someonenotnoone Mainly Switzerland.
@@truxton1000 good riddance, let them hoard Switzerlands resources, we'll see how long that works for them.
@@someonenotnoone Well the more that go Norway as a country lose a lot of money as of course they take everything with them. I remember France had a wealth tax once, they had to abolish it as so many people just move dout, it can be a serious problem...
@@truxton1000 The problem is clearly not the tax, but that people can run away to some garbage country that sells everyone else out.
The main rationale behind this narrative is very ethical. I am far from being a rich but I still struggle to accept this race to bottom for the rich. As you said Gary, they own the infrastructures we 'need' everyday. They don't only explore basic products or services, they invest in new technologies and develop state of the art infrastructures that we all benefit everyday. If you excessively tax these assets there will be no incentives for someone to invest in your country. You certainly are not suggesting that governments start owning skyscrapers, supermarkets, shopping malls, gyms, football clubs, etc... These are not essential as health and education, but they do indeed improve the overall quality of the society. Of course, there are some examples were regulation has a role to play such as in controlling the rampant increase of prices in the housing market to ensure that everyone has access to a house, but other than that I believe it is delusional to argue that there would be no consequences in taxing the rich. Ultimately, as in every communist regime, the country will stop developing.
A lot of data suggest higher taxes on the rich lead to higher growth rates - in the 60's, when tax rates on the rich were much higher, growth was far higher than it is now.
The idea that "the rich invest" is very simplistic. In general, it is companies and governments that invest in new productive assets, individuals are more likely to buy them and own them once they are already made. In order for real "investment" to occur you require both someone to provide the capital and also a company that wants to grow - the last 15 years of rapidly rising inequality and rapidly falling investment shows us that empoverishing the middle class does not lead to growth or "investment".
You talk as if ‘rich people’ - as a group - pay no tax whatsoever at the moment!
You massively over simplify a complex topic, you don't tell people any facts or give any data to back up what you are saying.
1. Freezing assets isn't taxing them. If the UK did that across private assets the capital flight out of the country would be fast and it would cripple the economy.
2. The top 1% of income earners pay 30% of income tax, the top 10% pay 60%. How much more do you want them to pay?
3. Increasing taxes does encourage people to take action. They may not leave the country but they will do whatever they can to limit the effect.
4. Lower taxes can improve the tax take. A perfect example is when George Osbourne lowered the higher band from 50 to 45% and the tax take went up (Laffer curve in practice)
Lowering tax should encourage the increase of the flow of money which is what is and needs to be taxed - more transactions, more tax generated. The other problem is of course how that tax generated is spent. The inequality increase is a sign that the flow of money is not going in a direction favourable for the many. And wealth accumulation in the hands of few does not really end up benefitting the many. Can this flow be reversed through tax policies? People that have assets can leverage them, create more debt which is tax free and get finance to buy more assets.