'Why we need a wealth tax' | Free Lunch on Film

[@LeRoiJojo]

"I've never seen a tax removed, ever." Well, except for wealth taxes, that is.

[@mon699]

Literally 😂

[@MrBlaxjax]

It’s not true. Window tax, residential property rates in the uk. (Rates were a kind of wealth tax). Poll tax. Purchase tax. Taxes often get abolished. They are often replaced by something similar but not always.

[@freekyeekz]

Precisely the sort of gaslighting you get from these parasites

[@freekyeekz]

Get yourself to Portugal love, good riddance

[@ryancouture2508]

Rich people see their taxes removed or lowered all the time.

[@joepeterson-s6t]

Thank you so much for this video but in these uncertain times it is more important than ever to have a solid understanding of how the government are still in charge of our wealth and manage your finances, invest wisely and navigate economic downturns. But my primary concern is how to grow my reserve of $240k which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains, sure I'm all in on the long term game, but with my savings are lying waste to inflation and my portfolio losing gains everyday, I need a remedy.

[@dorathykalms]

If you need advice, consider speaking with a financial advisor. Don't get me wrong, you can do it on your own, but financial advisors have a lot more knowledge and expertise in this area.

[@альбинапронина-н5й]

you are completely right, Advisors have information and paths that are not disclosed to the public.. I profited £560k in 2022 under the tutelage of my Fiduciary-counselor. Am I selling? Absolutely not.. I am going to sit back and observe how this all plays out.

[@gloverlife-w4b]

That's impressive! I could really use the expertise of this manager for my dwindling portfolio. Who’s the professional

[@альбинапронина-н5й]

Her name is “Selena-Nicole cefaloni can't divulge much. Most likely, the internet should have her basic info, you can research if you like

[@Dasilver-h3t]

I just Googled her name and her website came up right away. It looks interesting so far. I sent her an email and i hope she responds soon. Thanks

[@randijohansen5683]

If you want to live in a well functional country you have to pay the costs. I am proud to pay my taxes in Norway. I consider it an investment in safty, good education, professional health systemes etc. I want my country to be a well functional place to live. Big hugs 🇳🇴

[@lonevoice]

@D C That's right. In the UK we seem to want something for nothing. The UK is already below average amongst successful OECD countries for its tax burden. The US is lower but has largely private healthcare. The real problem with a skewed wealth distribution is that it is economically inefficient. The wealthy can only spend so much each year and any surpluses tend to go into assets like property and shares, with increased demand pushing up prices. This then has a negative effect on the economy, particularly from higher rental costs.

[@lonevoice]

@Sean Downey Explain. How is it immoral? That doesn't make any sense. Also, net worth isn't a guess, its a valuation done on a basis defined by tax law.

[@lonevoice]

​@D C How is that? The UK is below average amongst successful OECD countries for tax burden compared with GDP. The US is lower but they don't have a properly funded health service. Perhaps you prefer a dog eat dog society where those who are not capable of holding down a job are just left to rot, but many of us expect a level of decency in our society.

[@lonevoice]

@D C Complete nonsense. Why should society pay you anything? If you don't want to take part in society then perhaps you should be excluded. Your selfish me, me, me only attitude is grotesque and the insurance based system that you refer to only works by excluding a proportion of the population.

[@lonevoice]

@Sean Downey Hardly greed, just common sense. A wealth tax can only realistically be applied to the wealthy and that as a minimum would be family's with net assets over about £1 million. The problem that the UK has at present is that there is a inefficiently skewed distribution of wealth. The wealthy are unable to spend enough. They always have a surprise of income and that surplus tends to go into the purchase of assets such as shares and property and the increasing amounts being diverted here tends to push up prices. Working people then have to pay increasingly higher rents and their disposable income then gets drained with a knock on effect in a downward spiral on the working economy for jobs and business.

[@ItsMeBenson]

The moment when the lady wearing blue described it as ‘terribly cruel’ that millionaire retirees might have to ‘change their lifestyle’ in order to create some cash to pay a proposed wealth tax. She doesn’t know the meaning of cruel…

[@killectronewday8585]

You dont consider kicking people out of their homes to be cruel?

[@bocanjm215]

"Cruel" can mean different things to different people. In this case, imagine working hard your entire life so that you can retire comfortably, then the government ORDERS you to pay a huge amount of money just because your house is nice and expensive. If you don't have the cash, then you have to sell that house. Pretty cruel to me.

[@fuggles2544]

@@killectronewday8585 we are talking about wealth tax not home eviction. Many people working extremely hard on lower incomes are genuinely facing home evictions despite doing everything they can to make ends meet, with no safety nets to fall back on. People in the top 1% of wealth ownership will always have options, even in the face of a wealth tax. The desperation people at the bottom are facing is not due to their lack of input, far from it - they are working hard all their lives and end up with nothing. The economy desperately needs rebalancing, in a fair, calm, and carefully considered way.

[@fuggles2544]

​@@bocanjm215 whole industries will evolve around this to circumvent wealthy people having to sell their houses, e.g. renting unused rooms via platforms such as airbnb - this will mean that 'dead' assets will now be contributing more to the economy rather than just sitting there stagnant. Many people on lower incomes are already having to do this just to make ends meet. Also banks will front the money to older people in return for a percentage of the properties value, this already exists and again it is mostly people with smaller assets who have to use this model today to pay for care etc - there will always be ways around having to sell the property.

[@zwanzikahatzel9296]

Picture this, you were born in a beautiful historical palace (say worth 20 millions) full of art and memories from generations of your family. Your father before dying and being able to pass anything on to you dies in ruin because of bad investments. Because you also had most of your wealth tied in your father's business you also go bankrupt. Now you face a 1% wealth tax on your family home (i.e. 200k a year). The home is yours, your family owned it for generations, it has all your memories and history, but the state wants its 200k a year, so pay up or move somewhere else, you are not cash-rich enough now to live here. Imagine a similar situation where you are a widow and you have to deal with that in the last years of your life. People need to be able to feel secure in their own homes, that at least no matter what they can live there. If you wanna tax wealth, tax productive assets that make money. If you don't want housing speculation, tax the houses people don't actually live in, don't tax the only home that someone has.

[@Ikbeneengeit]

"Won't somebody think of the suffering of the rich!?" - Blue sweater woman

[@TracinyaLachance]

Right? Also gotta love when she said no tax has been abolished ever and therefore we shouldn't reintroduce the previously abolished wealth tax. HMMMM...

[@markwelch3564]

Also the objection to "the state enumerating everything you own" But if you're on benefits, this objection suddenly disappears 🤔

[@CmdrTobs]

@@TracinyaLachance Was there a wealth tax?

[@CmdrTobs]

@@markwelch3564 No actually, it’s a big problem even there. That's why universal benefits are prefered over means testing. If means testing is accurate and personalised it costs more than it saves. If means testing is generalised like "Earn over 60K and you lose child benefit" you end up hurting widows with 3 kids earning 61K while paying out to comfortable couples each on 50K with one child. The only people who demand means testing ("the state enumerating everything you own") with bennefits are out-of-power socialists playing politics. e.g Labour raising the need for means testing everytime the Tories introduced a payment during the pandemic.

[@TracinyaLachance]

@@CmdrTobs She said it was previously abolished, aka gotten rid of, so yeah presumably. You can't very well abolish something that never existed in the first place.

[@leighbee13]

God that blue shirt woman really riled me up. All the issues she says would be caused for rich people with a wealth tax are the same the poor get. They’re told “if you don’t have a cash inflow then get back to work, make sure you have enough savings, this is your fault.”

[@leighbee13]

Oof and then the well we’ll just avoid it or leave. Such a sneering threat.

[@leighbee13]

If you want to keep your inherited castle then get a job!

[@RomanDubP]

So it wasn't just me. She's extremely annoying - instead of providing her own ideas or entertaining the other perfectly reasonable suggestions, she's just shooting everything down. And some of her arguments are trivial at best.

[@tomo1168]

or just sell that f.cking villa and buy a smaller one. the difference is enough for your whole live to pay the tax. f.ck them.

[@sujesh4684]

Let's hope karma returns her a favor

[@rosstatham439]

You know shit’s bad when the FT is putting out content on a wealth tax.

[@donmorris1540]

😂 the only arguments against it amount to, ‘it hurt the national economy bc other nations aren’t taxing wealth so businesses will run away’. wealthy leading countries like uk, us can’t lead the way? pathetic.

[@CmdrTobs]

@donmorris1540 That's not the only argument. The top 1% in the UK starts at £3.4M. That's basically a doctors/lawyers/accountant’s pension pot and house. So, take the Doctor, the NHS holds her pension as a liability. So, no actual cash. Maybe a slight saving for the NHS when she retires, but no cash now. Now take her 900K house. Let’s say a 5% wealth tax, how does she get 45K out of that house? Sell it and rebuy? she'd spend that in fees and stamp duty. so probably a loan. You should expect a considerable change in her behaviour next year, you’ll find this same individual is renting and not paying in their pension while bitcoin soars…… Take someone wealthier with say a £50M business. how do they come up 2.5M? Sell some of their business? Likely foreign private equity buyer as everyone else in the UK’s 1% will not be buying at this time. So over time most of the countries productive assets are transferred into offshore private equity over time. Then the same voices will moan about that.....

[@donmorris1540]

@@CmdrTobs fair fair, all good points. still drives home the problem that we can’t tax the rich because they will basically cheat and leave. pathetic, if only we could inshore all the world’s wealth and minimize the effectiveness of tax havens. humanity will kill itself because tories need their yachts.

[@ThomasHope73]

⁠@@CmdrTobsThis is a Strawman argument; the proponents of a wealth tax consistently emphasise that we are NOT talking about millionaires but the extremely wealthy; not a few million but tens or hundreds of millions. The only way one could overlook this fundamental point is by being deliberately obtuse, suggesting you are ideologically opposed to a wealth tax, but can’t present a valid argument against it, thus the Strawman. Meanwhile the task of taxing the REALLY wealthy presents different practical challenges and looking at those realistically will yield different results to pretending we’re including doctors and lawyers, etc.

[@skylineuk1485]

@@CmdrTobs they are talking 10’s of millions at least and 1% of anything minus the debt.

[@photodunn7828]

This is the first balanced news article I’ve seen for a long time

[@jamesbyrne9312]

Its because the FT think its so unlikely to happen that they let him make it, so they can 'appear' fair and unbiased

[@LeRoiJojo]

Maybe you should read the news more often. 🧐

[@ShawnForno]

“Being a rich person is not worth destroying your society.” Boom. Nailed it.

[@EnterTamed]

@2:10 countries removing "wealth tax" @9:40 "I've never seen a tax abolished, not once, ever..." 🤦‍♂️

[@1MonoParlante]

She’s old enough to remember Thatcher.

[@davidflorsek9105]

Good point. She was really just a shill for rich people and it showed. If pressed, you can find 100 seemingly plausible reasons not to do anything. However, I do think that a wealth tax is just lawmakers just being too lazy or corrupt to revise the tax code to get rid of corrupt loopholes.

[@matthewbrown7048]

Good point then maybe for the sake of accuracy, or pedantry it would be better to say. The only time you see a tax abolished is when it costs the country revenue.

[@JustTakeAMoment]

The worry is that if you only have a small amount of income and modest amount of savings but it seems to me, that the idea doesn't take into consideration income. Not one person mentioned an income relationship through the entire length of this video. They also didn't say how wealth would be calculated or indeed what the cost of assessing wealth annually might look like and in the cases where a wealth tax exists, they don't have other taxes on wealth like capital gains or inheritance tax, both of which are in full flow here and have been growing government income as allowances have been reduced. It seems reasonable to suggest that you need to reduce loopholes on those people avoiding tax and tax evasion. I don't mind paying my fair share of tax but it should always have a relationship with actual income, not static wealth.

[@arandmorgan]

I often find those people who try and dismiss a wealth tax have a vested interest in keeping one from happening.

[@wisemintapp]

You think that maybe you should be asking people who have created wealth how to raise revenues? Or should we restrict the idea generation to people who have never created wealth?

[@WilliamAhlert]

@@wisemintapp Who creates wealth? I work at a small shop and I know I've generated over £25k in revenue for my store, while I've made about £5k the past four or so months in wages. Do I create wealth?

[@CmdrTobs]

and the proponents of a wealth tax are always young and imagine they'll benefit.

[@WilliamAhlert]

@@CmdrTobs How young is young? Is Gary, in his thirties, young? Is Jill Stein young? Why is this even a bad thing? The wealth tax is a preventative measure, not a restorative one. It is, at its core, intended to intentivise the rich to sell their assets, combating the national crisis of wealth inequality that has decimated our country, by lowering the price of housing to more affordable levels for young people like me to jump on the housing ladder.

[@aceyage]

@@CmdrTobsEveryone will benefit from it.

[@alanleung1828]

The wealthy doesn't actually have a proper income, they have their wealth (principal) which they borrow against, generating positive cashflow. Instead of a wealth tax, it would be a lot easier to implement a cashflow tax, since all cashflows are recorded and can be easily identified both on and offshore.

[@pdiddyprof]

I agree with this. Or even some kind of interest rate tax on loans made against capital assets that the wealthy would have to pay annually.

[@colinhitchman2495]

Now that's interesting! 🤔

[@DreamCatcher201]

that already exusts.

[@RH-nk7eo]

Cashflow tax already exists what are you talking about? The entire point of a wealth tax is to focus on assets residing within a country regardless of where the owner may live. The notion that foreigners can extract wealth from us whilst paying no tax on it is absurd.

[@benjaminbate2097]

Three words: LAND VALUE TAX. - Much easier to value than 'wealth' writ large. - Much harder to evade, (you either own a plot of land or you don't and the government knows that, you can't hide it in the Cayman Islands). - Reduces/stabilizes rental prices, (if you the raise rent then you admit that your land is worth more and therefore will be taxed more). - Could raise huge amounts of revenue, eclipsing that of a wealth tax, which can be used to reduce taxes on income i.e. peoples time and effort. - Encourages productive usage of land, (if you buy land and are simply waiting for the value to increase then you will be taxed while you wait). - Progressive and mitigates inequality, (The more valuable your land holdings the more you'll be taxed). - Proven to work in places from Alaska to Singapore. - Widely accepted by people from all across the political spectrum and economics profession to be a preferable way of raising tax revenue. This needs to be talked about much more. It's not a silver bullet but it would solve a lot of problems in the UK economy if a government just had the guts to do it.

[@bhough410]

A "land value" tax has been tried many times throughout history via amount of windows or fireplaces etc...people avoided the tax by building with less fireplaces than needed or boarding up windows which always came at a cost to renters (often lower income) in the form of negative health benefits. There is ALWAYS a trade off! Those avoiding paying "their fair share" are often doing so because they're permitted, regularly a "loophole" was written into legislation as a result of supporting someones campaign. Rather than discovering ways to increase revenue (which again will come with a negative trade off) how about the discussion starts with reducing fraud, waste and abuse?

[@akalaiderxd9686]

Read the comment. A land value tax is a tax on the land you own. This means that rich people actually need to either use the land to create value or sell the land. The reason why taxing land is especially good, is because it’s an asset that can’t be made more of and is hella valuable which means that with this tax rich landowners can’t just get richer by holding on to an unproductive asset.

[@harryatay4218]

watch the cost of food soar due to agricultural land being taxed... farmers are already struggling as it is.

[@Prolute]

@benjaminbate2097 Actually a land value tax is not progressive, which is one of the good things about.

[@chaseog9734]

Who determines “value”????

[@PhilC2496]

If we were to introduce a wealth tax we would then need to be able to better identify ownership of trust property and other similar interests. This is how the majority of wealth is held and unfortunately, the vast majority is offshore. Thanks City of London.

[@benghiskahn3673]

This is what the vast majority of people do not realise, that the wealthy are so wealthy that they are able to legally give away their wealth, in order to avoid paying taxation on it, whilst simultaneously retaining legal control of that wealth.

[@WPaKFamily]

Oy Vey! Don't mention the City of London, talk about London instead. Keep them confused.

[@homergee3381]

change the motivation, the tax system says earn more pay more, the answer is staring you in the face.

[@Davos-st8ok]

You're a moron. London is part of the AEI which means they report financial accounts held by foreigners to their respective countries. Your critique stems from ignorance.

[@WPaKFamily]

@@Davos-st8ok☝🤓

[@simonfrost7094]

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if countries hadn't basically legalised tax avoidance and evasion, allowing multi-national corporations to get away with effective Corporation Tax rates in the low single digits whilst SMEs have to pay the full whack (because they can't afford to pay for creative accountants). We have enough taxes already, the problem is that governments aren't collecting them.

[@TSquared2001]

🤔

[@homergee3381]

change the motivation, the tax system says earn more pay more, the answer is staring you in the face.

[@globalbridges8570]

It's the other way round, why are govern-minds (mentis=minds) spending more every year on mostly non-sense. If you treated govern-minds like the corporation it is, with people paying into it for services and not getting those services, would you go round telling people to pay more for the service of the govern-minds corporation. No, it's only because it is a mind control trick you are even talking about giving an unproductive corporation access to more resources. Everything is hidden in plain sight.

[@SpartanGR]

"Its very cruel towards people who hold wealth" " cataloguing someone's assets is intrusive". This sums it up for those of us who own practically nothing.

[@bettyswallocks6411]

“… I have been in this business for a long time, but I have never seen a tax abolished …” Except for wealth taxes.

[@johntheaccountant5594]

It is quite obvious that the western governments will have to charge a wealth/capital tax because the governments are not going to get much income tax when companies are paying minimum wage knowing that the government will pay universal credit to make up people's incomes. That is the reason that the rich are keeping their assets in "foundations" or off their personal balance sheet in off shore companies. Switzerland has a wealth tax where you pay 0.2% on your net assets depending on the canton you are resident in. That is the reason that people keep undisclosed bars of gold to avoid the capital tax and inheritance tax.

[@mangs9940]

I have noticed some small/medium businesses being taken over by big company's ( probably offshore) . So that real profit generated is redirected offshore avoiding taxes. Its all such a mess.

[@mangs9940]

@@chiquita683 by who? - themselves :)

[@clancywiggam]

@@chiquita683 They are, they get voted out if they are thought to be doing a bad job.

[@etobillions]

@@meiko_kaji you everywhere on this, maybe this video is directly talking to you. pipe down and present a rational debate than throwing your ignorance on every comment.

[@mytimetravellingdog]

we can make it punishingly hard for them to realise those hidden assets.

[@larrygerry985]

Maybe instead of a wealth tax, just look at the tax on the books and how people avoid them. Or do we assume people will be honest with this new tax ?

[@katana2k]

There is already a push to eliminate tax havens with a global corporate tax rate

[@ChrisGoldie]

It would lead to the same ending. You gotta have a certain amount of money to be able to avoid taxes successfully. So if a bill was passed doing that you would see alot of billionaires/millionaires standing against it

[@jonb5493]

@@katana2k .. which has achieved very little.

[@lachie5687]

It's not that they're dishonest, it's that there are deliberate loopholes to support certain purposes. For people with a liquid net worth of between $1m to $25m, they are great and cause the changes they are intended to make. However, for people with far higher net worths, they present opportunities to reduce tax. A possible solution is to put a cap on these loopholes. For example, there are tax deductions on property if you develop affordable housing. Many of the rich spend billions on developing large luxury residential skyscrapers but just not sell the apartments so they can benefit from these tax deductions. Add a cap of say $20m, and suddenly it's more beneficial to billionaires to build affordable housing instead of empty towers.

[@zacharyconner8680]

That was discussed towards the end of this video..

[@FrankVerhagen]

The argument of solidarity is not heart very much: every individual, also the very rich, benefits from a well functioning society. Every individual needs a well functioning society and that costs money. This money needs to come from somewhere. Sufficient evidence within the scientific field of happiness that beyond a certain amount of wealth there is no longer a relationship between more wealth and more happiness. So what is the problem with sharing some of your wealth? That very act would actually increase your level of happiness. Thanks for a fine documentary.

[@Iskandar64]

Your guest, I forget his name, said that any list of the highest earners, is totally different from a list of the wealthiest people, this group is far more wealthy than the highest earners. Very wealthiest people do not earn income and do not pay much income tax. They receive dividends, rents, increases in capital gains, etc. Unearned income. Yes, I think there should be a wealth tax.

[@ashaide]

That's Gary Stevens. He has an awesome KZbin channel where he explains that and more in GREAT detail. One of the most fascinating things I learned there was how exactly the really wealthy were the ones who PROFITED from the pandemic. Gary called it one of, if not THE, greatest transfer of wealth, only to the wealthiest, the ones who own capital.

[@RH-nk7eo]

@@ashaide Read up on Disaster Capitalism to learn more.

[@rajasraut]

What I understood from this video is as below: 1) You make money through business or other means and pay income tax. After that you save some money and buy non performing assets like jewelry and art while paying sales tax/vat/gst/ other taxes. And 1 year later as per the wealth tax rules you will have to pay taxes for owning these non performing assets. 2) If you are a middle aged, monetarily successful person and choose to purchase home for your children to own once they grow up, then you will be taxed for owning those homes as they are part of your wealth legally even though you have already paid all the relevant taxes while purchasing the homes. Kindly correct me if I am wrong in the above scenarios. Note: I just thought of the above 2 examples where I believe wealth tax is not a justified tax. There are many more scenarios which could show that the wealth tax is an unjustified money grabbing mechanism rather than legitimate need of the society like regular income taxes and other various taxes.

[@theevermind]

Don't forget that no one knows how much something non-monetary is worth unless it's sold. That means the govt will appraise it for the maximum possible, while the market will pay the least possible. The govt will claim your jewelry, art, etc., is worth more than it actually is and tax you accordingly. When you are forced to sell it to pay the tax, you won't get a refund. Also note that a wealth tax requires the govt knowing everything that you own. How will they do that? What level of invasion will they have into your life that can track it for everyone? And how much will such a state apparatus cost? The new taxes they extract may only cover the cost of 'doing business' (not to mention the erosion of the economy and disincentive for future transactions) meaning no problems were actually solved.

[@richardscott9797]

Wholeheartedly agree!!

[@trident9188]

​@@theevermind You need to go to therapy, did the government touch you when you were little or something. The whole point of a wealth tax is to prevent the ultra rich from getting even richer - you are not the ultra rich (statistically) - so no one will need to claim your assets. Also ever heard of an accountant?? Additonally, an economy subject to a wealth tax will not erode, infact it will improve, as wealth inequality has been proven to inhibit growth in aggregate output. Please never comment on economics again.

[@brownbodyewb]

One important point is that we don't add wealth taxes on top of existing tax. If you want to institute a wealth tax, you should eliminate other taxes such as inheritance taxes on the wealthy. Make one tax that applies to everyone who has say 10 million or more, no loopholes. That would be a start.

[@rosstatham439]

Nope. The point is to generate more tax revenue, not to reduce beuracracy

[@davidmenham1782]

It is glaringly obvious that the gap between the very rich and the very poor has become an enormous chasm that needs to be bridged. It is not just the job of one government to do something about this but all governments as wealth is being generated in a global economy which cannot be controlled by any single government. What is needed to cope with this problem is a new form of global governance that addresses the obscene inequalities that currently exist globally. It is essential to to this as a matter of urgency as the climate crisis, the threat of further pandemics and unsolved conflicts are set to make the situation much worse than it is at present triggering a massive rise in migration and the destruction of poorly built physical infrastructure and loosely held together social structures. We have no other choice but to get to work on the abolition of extremes of wealth and poverty in order to ensure the future stability of civilisation which now finds itself at a critical juncture.

[@jonb5493]

@@meiko_kaji Uh, it's glaringly obvious when I see tent-cities, and armies of broken, impoverished people, and when I get perpetually panhandled on the street. And actually, it has never brought to mind any consideration of personal underachievement. What the "achievement" it does bring to mind is, isn't there a better way to "achieve" fixing social ills than just me putting a buck in a cup and side-stepping past a rough-sleeper?

[@craigo2656]

The article itself proclaims that only £400 would be available to each household. This doesn't bridge some massive wealth gap. Also, the focus of your position is wrong if you want to improve the lives of the majority. Being envious of the most wealthy does not help the population as a whole gain wealth. You need to focus on policies that increase the wealth/living standard of the majority in the long term. Look at the data for China from 1990, the wealth gap has increased massively, but over the same period your saw the greatest increase in people pulled out of poverty ever. The investment banker in the video shows the opportunity available in the UK. He was from a poor family. Create a society with a good average standard of living with relatively high levels of opportunity, and it will out perform a society that achieves a tiny distribution of wealth by taxing the richest, out perform in terms of making the majority better off. Also, a society with greater investment in achievement will be more likely to generate the technological advancements needed to beat climate problems.

[@danyalullah5856]

getting all the goverment in the world to agree on something would be immpossible.countries, cities counties and even villages cant even agree on anything

[@clam4597]

They might agree on paper, but definitely welcome wealthy to invest in their country

[@njm543]

Is it fair for small island countries that the only way they can compete is to have low taxes? Like why would any one bank or invest in the Cayman Islands if taxes are the same as in the US? What happens to the people that are cayman nationals if that money leaves?

[@uusrano]

The reason why the rich got richer is bc when the state prints money, it goes to those who produce the products that ppl have to buy. The concentration of wealth followa the concentration of production. It will go on as long as the big companies continue to eat up the small shps and producers.

[@homergee3381]

change the motivation, the tax system says earn more pay more, the answer is staring you in the face.

[@DrJohnnyJ]

No, that is not true. Wealth has always gone to the rich. That is why Marx called free enterprise, "Capitalism". Because the guy with the capital wins. In the 1960's, when America was great, we had 90% income tax on people and companies along with great infrastructure and schools. California had a 6% property tax that funded the greatest university system in the history of the world. Reagan killed it and America has suffered every since.

[@acton7150]

@@homergee3381 Hahaha keep dreaming. The answer is staring you in the face, because who makes the rules are the rich themselves

[@homergee3381]

@@acton7150 Why does a channel with zero content have 6 subscribers acton7150? Monopolies are the problem because they accumulate all the wealth, eventually we all get owned by those who make the rules.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

When the state prints money it increase the price of assets. Not people who produce things. If you own assets you become richer for doing nothing.

[@dangerousliaisonsthepreque2415]

Time for a UK wealth tax. Stevenson is right.

[@RonAndrews-bj9xd]

Basic tax rates in the UK are 20% , most people pay this, why not all?.

[@avmobe]

That the FT is talking about wealth taxes, tells me that its time has come

[@ze_ep]

My opinion of Merryn Somerset Webb has fallen several points while watching this piece.

[@lutherblissett9070]

You just noticed? She's been talking out of her backside for years!

[@ga1226]

This is her personal assistant. She has asked me to personally let you khnow that she is devastated by this change in opinion.

[@RH-nk7eo]

@@ga1226 Be a good PA and stick to making coffee please luv

[@charlestaylor3081]

Excellent piece and great to hear someone in the media talking about the wealth inequality problem facing most of western society. I am one of the middle class and as such my main wealth asset is my home. But I realise, for me to get wealthier (ie my house price to raise) then my children will probably never be able to afford to buy a house. And if that is the case then there is something very very broken with our economy. The reality is that wealth inequality is already out of control in UK and the people who are paying the price are the young, low and middle classes. Wealth redistribution is the only option to save western society as we know it

[@MusMoroglu]

“It’s cruel to those with wealth who have to make considerable changes to their lifestyle” That is called reducing wealth inequality.

[@SarahMcCartney4160]

Except that they are prepared to move to Portugal, poor souls. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@tolhumexy6706]

It's crazy that some argue that the rich are too heavily taxed. Most of their money is offshore, in property or in trusts so they would not be taxed on their true worth.

[@soyadeos]

11:42 is so cruel and unfair for WHEALTHY PEOPLE to change their lifestyle. Instead of having 2 servants just having 1. Only 6 latte per week. Jeez is so unreal how can You deffend something so not defendable. The ultra rich really should have high income and wealth tax. Unfair is for working class sustaining that people

[@festerarl6653]

Great article. As said at the end - when society becomes so unequal that it becomes a mainstream discussion point then the politicians will act, but not before. However they will only have a fairly small window in which to act before public anger leads to them taking action themselves. As things stand inequality is growing and the greater the crises we face - be that covid or climate change - the faster the growth in inequality. There are a minority of super-rich who recognise this - like the Gates's and Buffets of this world - but too few as it currently stands.

[@gordonadams5891]

I agree with you. We also need to factor in the incredible capacity of the wealthy to manipulate public opinion. One side effect is voters simply staying home.

[@sands7779]

Look at history and Putin. Buy politicians who fund police and security and laws to keep poorer in their place. Get the middle class to police everone below them by bribing them with tidbits like marginal rate tax cuts.

[@denelson83]

If the public tries to take action against the super-rich, the super-rich _will_ flee.

[@homergee3381]

Gates and Buffet +++use charities as tax havens, they are still in full control are less regulated grow there wealth through shrewd charitable investing and get high praise for the deception. Mircosoft and Berkshire Hathaway do the opposite to the charity so its PR only. Tax their personal wealth on a sliding tax scale just like the rest of us, they're not special.

[@jezlawrence720]

Let them. Good bye. good luck moving that housing estate you own. And historically, what's happened isn't that they flee. Its that they end up defenestrated or 12 inches shorter. Which is a good reason for putting in a wealth tax before it gets that far. I certainly don't want to live through times like that.

[@vintage0x]

The way the proponents of this idea presented the idea in this video made it sound like a pretty feasible idea. Just focusing on the top few thousand richest people/families who are "ultra-millionaires" makes a great deal of sense. A lot of good can be done for those at the very bottom with that money.

[@benrae9044]

Amazing how "rich" always seems to be someone who has more money than the person being interviewed

[@vintage0x]

@@benrae9044 which is why we should let the top global experts on wealth taxes - for example Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman - advise politicans on the best way to decide the boundaries of the tax. A good example of this was the Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign, who was advised by the two names I mentioned. She proposed that the top 0.1% of households (a net worth of $50 million or more) would be taxed [2% on every dollar above $50m] and [6% on every dollar above $1 billion]. It would bring in $3.75 trillion ($3,750,000,000,000) over 10 years. Very well put together, and quite tidy. The point here is that you'd quickly start to run out of "people being interviewed" because there simply aren't that many people who have a net worth of $50m+.

[@MRkriegs]

It wouldn't go to those people at all. Like tax payers money isn't going to them now... LOL.

[@vintage0x]

@@MRkriegs the way things are now don’t have to be the way they are forever. politics changes things, every now and again

[@globalbridges8570]

Problem is via tax and estate planning most 'Wealthy' people have a net worth of £0. They control everything and own nothing, via offshore trusts, holdCo's and then Trading companies. The only people that would get taxes would be entrepreneurs that created productive, successful companies and haven't sold them yet. Once they look into tax & estate planning their net worth will be £0. Hence it is a total waste of time, as you only penalise the the innovators, the ones creating the future economy or competition for the exist 'Wealthy' (elite). These polices are to reduce competition between the old guard and the future entrepreneurs. All put in place by the good intentions of the people that don't grasp how the system works. The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.

[@MickHird]

Tax is a political issue as well as a numbers thing. People see redistributive taxation of any sort as being about taking collective responsibility. The symbolism of this tax is much more important than the revenue. Although it should be carefully designed to maximise the public benefit.

[@globalbridges8570]

You have a choice, Individual Freedom for all or Collective Slavery for indoctrinated. These collectivist ideas of stealing (taxing) people to give to the more needy, encourages more needy people which in term makes the productive people slaves to the needy. The only way out is reduce the friction (regulation/rules) for everyone to create their own living not funnel/trap more people into not being able to provide for themselves via regulations/rules/taxes etc. The solution is the total opposite to what most people think. The wealthy thrive off people being funneled/restricted into working for them due to taxes, regulations, rules etc. It's hidden in the name, Govern-Minds (mentis=minds). Anything that gives the govern-minds more power, more resources is great for the elite/wealthy, as it controls/restricts competition in their industries, hence the inequality.

[@davidbaker5561]

We would not need a wealth tax if asset prices were not artificially inflated through private banks money creation & negative real interest rates.

[@vondoom2876]

spot on

[@Calum_S]

Merrim's comment about having never seen a tax being abolished is missing the point. The suggestion was that a wealth tax could reduce other taxes, not remove them entirely.

[@katana2k]

Merrim has a fairly crummy attitude toward the whole thing; the gov't is incompetent, the rich are persecuted, etc. Maybe she thinks the widening wealth gap is good and the starving masses ought to just leave the idle rich to their art collections. If she thinks a wealth tax is cruel, wait until she sees what happens without it.

[@lutherblissett9070]

Merryn has a beautiful track record of being wrong, a good rule is to always do the opposite of what Merryn says.

[@theevermind]

Since when has a new tax reduced another tax? Govt has never met a tax it didn't like, and if it can get a new one, it has no incentive to reduce others unless it is somehow punished not to do it.

[@wes_the_mess2708]

We have a wealth tax in the Netherlands. I wholeheartedly agree with keeping it. Inequality is, sadly, unavoidable, but it has to be kept in check. I can't think of a more obvious way to do just that than a wealth tax. If nothing else, it penalises the hoarding of capital, which is a pretty good thing, especially nowadays.

[@globalbridges8570]

There is no money, only titles and claims. Due to double book entry and fractional reserve banking no one can hoard capital. A De-Posit, a Bond, a share certificate is not capital, it is an IOU, a claim on a bank/trust or company. It's not a real tangible thing that you can lock up and prevent others from using the underlining 'thing.' Most of the fictional value of the 'Wealthy' is based off 'Good Will' not 'Things' like land, machinery, people etc, they are based on time savings. You could go out buy all the parts to make a business but without all the time involved in creating complex agreements that allow the efficient use of these 'Things' you just have a bunch land, machinery etc collecting dust. Do you really want to penalise the creative people that find ways to use all these 'Things' and create interlocking agreements for people to be able to earn a living. Or should we demonise these creative people, so they stop being creative and allow loads of machinery and people to sit idle accepting Universal Basic Income from the supposed Wealthy that no longer have productive businesses employing people to pay the tax for UBI. Look up the Utopia, it means No-Place not Good-Place (Eutopia). All those people selling Utopian ideas are selling you a lie that allows more regulation to prevent the wealth from having open competition with small & Medium Enterprise SME's that can adopt and evolve quicker than multinationals. Taxation and regulation only serves to slow down the SME's and average people from competing with the very people you call Wealthy but likely have a net worth of £0 due tax and estate planning via Trusts.

[@johnvale295]

The holy grail of wealth creation is passive income. Trouble is, when so many of the assets (housing, commercial property, factories and the means of production) are hoovered up by the wealthy few to allow their money to work for them, the majority of the population with jobs find it increasingly hard to buy or rent affordable homes, and often struggle to feed themselves and pay for energy to keep them warm. We see the outcome of this in young people now having little chance of getting on the housing ladder unless they receive help from the Bank-of-Mum-and-Dad or inheritance. We also see the effects on families that have two working parents, yet still have to visit food banks to feed themselves and their kids. If something is not done by those in power, we will see wealth inequality spiral out of control.

[@globalbridges8570]

Those in power created this imbalance, why would you think they would solve it? The Govern-Minds (Mentis=Mind) are the elephant in the room that no one wants to address. Only a Govern-Minds Corporation can request funds without a contract via the notion of taxation. The problem is not the players that grasp how the game is played and play it well. It the very creation of the game that most don't even know exists, hence it is called the Matrix. A complex interlocking series of Trusts, where you are a government employee/resident handling government IOU's not money (Gold & Silver) occupying (think military occupation) properties as tenant, Joint Tenant or Tenants in Common. Most are not playing the game, as they don't know the rules, let alone know how to play. Hence, they lose everything when they stand up for themselves. Until the majority know and grasp the rules of the game of Land-Air-Water = LAW, the enlightened ones (elite) will always win. Don't hate the players, hate the game of commerce, the sea of commerce.

[@spikslow]

I think a wealth tax would be good, but not because it will somehow magically fix inequality. But we have an overarching income tax and a patchwork of inconsistent wealth taxes on individual asset types. It would be better to draw together property taxes, capital gains, tax on interest, stamp duty etc into a unified, consistent regime with a single tax rate and consistent rules. Far from being overcomplicated, it would simplify the mess we have now. And it would allow a rebalancing of taxation away from income. Taxing people for having stuff instead of doing stuff. Finally, in some cases it would mobilise underused assets that are kept idle because of inertia in their owners. E.g. keeping a house or a shop empty would be more painful, so this could press owners to use or sell their idle assets

[@boringmanager9559]

This is a good argument

[@KamikazeKosh]

Best comment sir

[@fuckbankers]

In the meantime the Tories give millionaires a tax cut.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

It wouldn't matter if they used or sold the assets. The tax would be the same. The incentive would be to get the assets appraised at a very low amount. That luxury mansion? For wealth-tax purposes, it's worth 5 bucks.

[@nowonami2524]

rich people pay zero tax likes jeff bezos or elon musk or trump. they own the wealth, take low interest loans against their assests for lifestyle spending. the value of their assests appreciates over time ( property, gold, shares etc) more then the interest on the loan. so, the rich keep getting richer. while sheeple pay tax on their income before they can touch it.

[@The.world.has.gone.crazy...]

It baffles me that so many common people defend the rich.

[@etobillions]

it should because they would rather than defend the government. the tax money is gonna end up in the government coffers and how are they gonna manage it to benefit the poor. the poor have got lots of experience with government promises.

[@motox2416]

It's because they're not common people, they're temporarily embarrassed billionaires.

[@ndm0227]

It’s very hard to valuate art, private business, etc….unless you want to sell or insure. 🤔

[@edgarrodriguez8973]

Love your take on this issue!

[@barryamorris]

As of 2024 there is something like 8 TRILLION pounds sat in investment accounts in the Cayman Islands. This wealth should be used by governments to rebalance wealth inequality.

[@fliegeroh]

Nobody ever suggests reducing the size of government. That is where all reform should start.

[@julianshepherd2038]

People suggest that all the time. Thatcher won the 1979 election on it.

[@sdymott]

You and others like you always are.

[@beverleybirks4641]

Well done. I read Pikketty and thought he was hopelessly idealistic. I supported Elizabeth Warren's run for the Democratic nomination. Now Biden, a union man is moving in this direction. To see this documentary by one of the mainstays of the financial community gives me hope for the future even as Musk tries to take down the international community square.

[@willquinn8993]

It’s very simple: if we had a truly progressive tax system, financial inequality wouldn’t have soared to historic levels. As if we should be taking advice from elite, rich economists from privileged backgrounds who have advised our systems into this dysfunctional state.

[@colinhitchman2495]

We have been severely let down by successive governments not closing tax avoidance loopholes. This needs to stop. That would be a good start!.

[@lam7242]

the fun fact about the people working at OECD (to device strategies to make people and companies pay taxes) is that they do not pay taxes on the wage they receive for working at the OECD. it is always good to make regulations that don't apply to yourself

[@oxedex3266]

well it kind of makes sense, no conflict of interest.

[@xouat]

Also they’re talking about a wealth tax, you’re talking about an income tax. Those are two separate things.

[@kool1678]

And then when they have to simply list the countries with a wealth tax they miss at least the Netherlands and probably other countries as well. Well paid for a job half done.

[@globalbridges8570]

Common/Natural Law vs Corpus Juris Civilus - We are all equal vs some are more equal than others. Welcome to the Govern-minds (mentis=mind) control system, aka the My-Tricks-Matrix.

[@jamesgalloway5807]

You don’t need a “wealth tax”. You just need to collect tax from existing residents who enjoy residence in UK or hold a citizenship/right to remain. Means limit or strictly scale back non dom, any long term non resident in tax havens to relinquish passport etc. this would deem them tax residents and then collect as per existing tax rates

[@larrygerry985]

100%, there are so many loop holes in the UK. It would be more logical to examine how to get the most out of the tax first and close obvious loop holes. One glaring tax loop hole is the NHS tax, which over 75k you don't pay.

[@alperena1675]

That doesn’t address the problem at hand? Which is that wealth is not directly taxed as income is and therefore allows the rich to dodge taxes regardless of whether or not they are ‘residents’, ‘non-dom’ or other.

[@Kushagra.j]

@@larrygerry985 why should they? Not like poor people are paying? Why should I subsidize healthcare for a poor white woman who choses to not work and rather beg when she's fully able to work

[@Kushagra.j]

Lol you little economy would never recover if you took radical steps like these. Ever since you colonial looting days you economy is built on money of expats/foreign investment & rich foreign residents

[@arghjayem]

A wealth tax would be great, because currently especially in the U.K., income tax is unfair due to the fact that the wealthy quite often don’t earn relatively a lot through an “income” but through their asset wealth. I think in the U.K. we really need to lower the percentage of income tax taken from the bottom earners significantly. Basic rate is currently 20% on income of 12-50k? Let’s make it 10% on 12-40k, 20% on 40-60k, 35% on 60-80k and 45% on 80k-100k and 55% on 100k+.

[@xealit]

Wealth tax has been tried multiple times in many different countries and always failed. When an already successful country implements a wealth tax, it remains more or less successful _despite_ that tax, not because of it.

[@xouat]

How so? I mean, what are the mechanisms that cause a wealth tax to be a drag on the economy? The Netherlands have a form of wealth tax (though no capital gains tax for individuals) and they seem to be doing fine.

[@YusufXI]

You don’t need a wealth tax to punish the public anymore, we need greater taxation of corporations. The tax rate for corporations should be much greater.

[@curties]

I am not against it BUT we should check if reform of existing tax systems and loopholes could spare us the trouble of another tax that could be avoided and bring new troubles like "how to define wealth". I have a friend that inherited his great-uncles house and he had to go to court because the value of the house was priced so high he couldnt pay the inheritance tax without going into considerable debt and he even considered to not inherit at all for a house that had to be renovated extensively.

[@Isoroku1983]

Fascinating, what was the outcome if you don't mind me asking, or was the case reported, Would to read the ruling/outcome, regards!

[@SoilFirst]

Wealth will move to where it is least taxed. The question should be: Do you want wealth working in your community or somewhere else? Fair tax is a much better idea.

[@globalbridges8570]

Individual A pays 1% on £1bn (=£10m) Individual B pays 50% on £100k (=£50k) Which one pay more tax? B if you're an indoctrinated to not grasp how revenue vs rate works in the real economy. % rates are political nonsense - Revenue is reality

[@tinyweegiant4045]

When a billionaire hears about people going to a food bank, do they have a good laugh at how great they are?

[@mark10601]

People who pay lots of tax should receive awards or honours. So it’s a badge of pride that everyone else can see.

[@marrypage4559]

So having less becomes honor? And who has more is interested to see that badge of honor? Mmmh

[@tricky778]

a tax break is an award

[@tricky778]

@@marrypage4559 These memes are design to trap the woke. They will use all their efforts to make themselves poor and dependent, for a kind word once or twice in their lives.

[@Kushagra.j]

@@marrypage4559 not really this is a very good step

[@ferguscampbell5828]

Why pay more tax for honours when you can already pay the ruling party for them?

[@viwelolwane]

The big question is how is this going to address inequality, in a sense how is this going to change the situation of the poor.

[@keithflint7243]

One obvious answer is that government debt is reduced, and austerity can be avoided. Stop making the poor suffer whilst the rich accumulate wealth.

[@Abc123hdbr]

Where do you think the taxes go

[@viwelolwane]

@@Abc123hdbrit's well known that the state isn't capable of running itself properly

[@Abc123hdbr]

@@viwelolwane the idea that the rich will share their money if allowed to keep more of it is a fantasy

[@ga1226]

Didn't you watch the show? Everyone gets 400 pounds and this ends wealth inequality. Voila! problem solved.

[@JoinTheTemple]

An utterly awful idea. I can hardly think of a worse taxation suggestion.

[@ilsekuper3045]

To my opinion just a wealth tax will not solve the problem . Wherever there ist a loophole to avoid taxes, this will be used. Governments should agree on harmonized corporate and income taxes in order to avoid unnessesary competition. A part of this tax should be paid directly into a separate Account for special projects, especially economic infra structure. This could be invested in assets as well to raise more investments. These funds should be administrated together with an Economy/Industry council out of representatives from the various industrial associations as well as trade associations and trade unions. A bit like the industry council in Japan METI, but not top down, but in coordination with ministry for economics and direct advice on how these funds should be invested for the national infra structure. This would be a win win situation for all, Independently from current Ideologies.

[@ayabulelahenama5546]

I would definitely recommend this video to a public finance student

[@robertskolimowski7049]

It's only bloody obvious we should tax those filthy rich🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻✌ And u can spare me that they'd move some place else or invest less - it's all a load of rubbish, the only way they'd suffer would be them ending up having 2 luxurious yachts/jets etc instead of 3.

[@Kushagra.j]

Hahaha keep dreaming u poor commie

[@passenger175]

A must have for all countries. Full support.

[@TheTerrier]

Norway and Switzerland's strong economic positions are not due to a wealth tax, one is due to nationalised oil and the other is a glorified world bank

[@GL-GildedLining]

Bingo.

[@SusCalvin]

Norway is very similar to the other Scand countries. They are all very similar. Norway is a bit wealthier than the neighbours with a functional oil fund.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Gary is so good

[@CalifornianViking]

The combined wealth and dividend taxes in Norway is almost like a confiscation of the assets. The Norwegian wealth tax is skewed and too high. Norwegian private investors cannot compete with foreign investors and the Norwegian state (who pays no tax). The effective tax rate on dividend can be 100% when wealth taxes are included.

[@felipesuarez5041]

Well, that's the reason why we would never see a Norwegian Spotify, Nokia, HM, Ericsson, Ikea or something alike the amazing companies and startups that have come out of the other Nordic countries. It would be specially hard to create something like Spotify in Norway, which was worth millions while still having negative revenue.

[@benfulford3943]

@@felipesuarez5041 Norway is one of the richest countries per capita in the world. They obviously aren't doing to badly with all of their progressive tax systems. While they are one of the richest they also have some of the best quality of life as well as general happiness levels even though they spend nearly 6 months in darkness

[@felipesuarez5041]

@@benfulford3943 I am not saying anything about the quality of life in Norway, I am saying that if you are planning to innovate or create a company, Norway is not the place to do it. Besides everybody knows that Norway's wealth is because of oil, not because of the tax system. Sweden had the same tax system in the 70's and 80's and in the 90's they had to drop it, because they realized they were becoming poor.

[@markbain9290]

The author got its facts wrong. There still is a wealth tax in France, it's called IFI and is levied on real estate.

[@jonb5493]

Yeh that's what I thought. The French experience has been an encourgaement for the idea of a Land-Value Tax in the U.K.. But it could never happen, Brit voters will never be that sensible.

[@jonathantatler]

How about making the inheritance tax system work... Like making Mogg, Sunak and Johnson pay?

[@martinzihlmann822]

why only pay on inheritance? why not pay every year? not much, but enough to lower our income taxes and fund the NHS.

[@colinhitchman2495]

I find the spiral of asset ownership to the mega-rich, very scary, and understand this will only get worse if it is not addressed very soon. I think what we are seeing with the recent riots is just a symptom of the increasing wealth inequality, and, if not addressed, we a looking at a future of increasing civil unrest. This is not a future I want for anybody. I believe If society as a whole was less poor, most of the major pain points could be resolved over time. It's hard to know what I can do as an individual, to help, but I certainly don't want to perpetuate a financial system that is failing so badly. What is your advice? "What would you do?"🤔 Kudos to @Garyseconomics for highlighting, and taking the "Harder, more concsiencious route", and shining a light on wealth inequality. 🙏 His insights, put into practice, could benefit everyone in the country, even the rich! After all, it's no fun having great wealth if you are living in a warzone on your doorstep, and you are scared to leave your bubble. 🤔

[@arjun7041]

Would it not be more effective to increase the disposable income of the poorer individuals? Raise the threshold for tax free allowance, reduce the NI burden and work to increase efficiency - cheaper transport, less burden for bills via better insulation and sustainable energy production. If the government is truly interested in levelling out the playing field, perhaps increase the efficacy of its current taxes rather than just introducing new taxes. The ultra wealthy do not pay their fair share, middle class and working class folk have to bear the burden

[@peteradaniel]

Well with that all your doing is reducing the pot by which services can be provided. So goodbye NHS and free schools, or so long firemen, policemen and armed forces. There needs to be a state to provide public services and uphold social civility. Personal responsibility isn’t universal, but is very arbitrary.

[@wilhelmvanbabbenburg8443]

It is not mutually exclusive. The solution is not one of those but a combination. There is a distinction between well paid, hard working people and ultra rich or very well paid people like top managers. Those that can influence the economy and politics and also those that take decisions but are shielded from the consequences of their decisions.

[@robinspat]

The government is certainly NOT interested in Levelling Up, that was a Genocide Johnson and ‘collective cabinet government’ ruse.

[@fwefhwe4232]

europeans and now amrikis wont understand all this. There is a reason why Indian cities have more electric buses (much cheaper than diesel ones) than all of USA. the upword mobility in european society was hindered by the brit caaste system. what do you think potter in harry potter means ??

[@morafematseke6224]

Wealth tax should first be paid by those who advocate for it. Do unto others as you want it done unto you.

[@kschuman1152]

I am sure this is somewhat half-baked, but... It is apparently the case that the 10 most wealthy American's have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the US population. I think a one wealth tax time based on a formula that reduces all billionaires to 9 digit multi-millionaires, would allow a one time redistribution of that wealth into a long term pension fund that is dedicated to paying a minimum income to all adults in the US. Stock could be sold on a slow steady basis over 100 years or so to fund the re-distribution program. Excess wealth stored in property would have to be sold, and property assets with ultra high valuation (palace like mansions) could be expropriated by government and converted to multi-tenant, affordable housing, or in other like ways that promote a restoration of wealth equality. The end result would negligibly effect the economic well being of the ultra rich, who would still be ultra rich by any rational standard (having a net worth of at least $999,999,999.00). They might feel somewhat less able to provide for an infinite number of future progeny, but unless they have such a large litter of children that would dilute a billion dollars to insignificance, I think their children's trust funds would still be pretty impressive. And if their reduced state seems cruel or unfair, they can always go back out and try to earn the next trillion dollars, since a one time tax will should not substantially disincentivize economic activity. For what it is worth, I don't believe the super wealthy achieve their wealth by dint of special skills or hard work. It's almost entirely luck. Certainly a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet are good at what they did to earn their wealth. But the results they achieved in terms of massive super wealth are the result of being at the right place at the right time or making many lucky guesses more or less consecutively. Statistics will show that if one runs a 'coin flipping' contest with a very large number of participants, there will be a few left at the end of the contest who have correctly guessed heads or tails 20-30 times in a row. So in a system that involves capital opportunities there are going to be some individuals that are simply 'fortunate' and end up with almost all the money. It's completely inevitable, unless the money is taxed at some point. Such a tax would have to be applied retroactively to capture any wealth that is moved offshore, either by transfer of funds, property etc., or by specific individual migration of ultra rich Americans to other countries that offer a relative tax haven. The net worth based on say, a 2021 based asset valuation could be the basis for the tax. The confiscatory tax law law could allow individuals to submit adjustments to their net worth prior to paying the accessed tax, as some unfortunate mega billionaires, like 'Elon Musk' may have seen their fortunes felled by market fluctuations. Since the tax would be on a very small number of individuals, each submitted adjusted statement of net worth could be carefully examined by a team of auditors to insure it's accuracy, and to deny any claims based on transfers of assets.

[@Andre-ct4fq]

I expected a very biased documentary due to the title, but was quite positively surprised. It wasn't neutral, but giving a quite balanced picture anyways. At least for an opinionated report. Thanks!

[@katana2k]

Would a wealth tax force the rich to invest in more productive assets, or would it push down the price of less productive assets?

[@MrOrbion]

It would certainly encourage people with assets that generate no income to move abroad, sell part of their assets or transfer their assets to income producing ones. For example, growth companies that pay no dividends, would need to start paying dividend or higher salaries to their owners just to pay for the tax.

[@Ausf]

People would continue to avoid taxes as much as they can, and governments would mismanage any they get.

[@thegingame632]

It’s 💯 needed, when certain people are spending £35,000 a day on holidays to the Maldives etc when people are freezing in their homes - then a wealth tax is quite simply needed. However, even though I am someone on the opposite side to the rich I would still agree that wealth tax shouldn’t be aggressive, like anything it should be well thought out.

[@zbynekII]

We used to have this crap for fourty years in my country. Thing is that at the end you'll have two guys freezing in their homes and one guy hungry in Maledives.

[@mastersinr]

Ahh so you're gonna take 35k away from the starving people of maldives and give it to your government? How cruel

[@ferguscampbell5828]

@@mastersinr If that 35k actually went to the people of the Maldives you'd have a point, but it will go into the pockets of the multinational that owns the resort.

[@richardshipe4576]

@@ferguscampbell5828 the idea that the "ruling class" takes all applies everywhere for you, right?

[@jimmyzhao2673]

Governments generally *waste* and piss away taxpayer money.

[@richardbarr7173]

Merryn Somerset Webb claims that she has "never seen a tax abolished, not once" - yet this very same video discusses how wealth taxes in a handful of European countries were abolished, including specifically by Emmanuel Macron in France in 2017

[@BobSmith-fx9sz]

Just start implementing a LVT (Land Value Tax). Even the Tax Hawk Milton Friedman liked it. Most people's wealth is in land anyway. Taxing your overall wealth, that includes stuff like cars and horses, discourages buying of that stuff. You'll loose jobs and slow the economy.

[@jonb5493]

Precisely. LVT: "Cinderella", "the love that knows no name" etc. Very well studied by economists. Therefore, Brit voters will never want it.

[@etobillions]

how are average Joes gonna be able to afford a house then

[@lutherblissett9070]

Cars and horses generally aren't included in wealth taxes (unless they're owned as an investment) it tends to be about targeting capital, so things you own in order to make a profit from, over a certain amount, say $50m. Undervaluing your assets to avoid tax can be penalized by ensuring the sale price of the property be the same as the declared price to the tax man. Of course there are a few issues with this too, and wealth taxes only really work at a global scale, but it's clear the level of wealth inequality is getting out of hand.

[@jonb5493]

@@etobillions The LVT would make homes more affordable. And as had been remarked elsewhere, no-one would suffer thru inability to pay. The plight of "property-rich, cash poor old people" can easily be tackled by deferring the tax payment until death.

[@michaelcre8]

You don't really need a wealth tax because there are only two ways wealth hurts society. Those are monopolies and hoarding real estate. Real estate taxes are flat because that benefits the wealthy. Make real estate tax progressive and there will be less hoarding because hoarding won't be as profitable.

[@SabzKhumalo]

Yes, there should be higher taxes for people who own more than 2 properties.

[@lutherblissett9070]

@@SabzKhumalo People and organisations. Blackrock owns an enormous number of properties.

[@randeknight]

How to value artwork? Have the owners value it themselves. But if a buyer comes along, they MUST sell it for the value that they have picked.

[@martinzihlmann822]

currently the rich tend to overvalue their artworks, as if they then gift it to a noble cause they can deduct that value from their income. wealth tax would definitely put a stop to that.

[@jchen2479]

cruel and unkind… there’s a lot of that in the world and the rich having to adjust their lifestyle does not mean they would be paupers, just not obscenely wealthy, an “average” life is good enough for most of us, why not these wealthy people?

[@SolidAir54321]

If we didn't distribute wealth unequally in the first place we wouldn't need to tax it away, which is just a patch but doesn't fix the root problem.

[@glennnielsen8054]

As long as people who are affected by a wealth tax are not tied to the country and have the opportunity to leave the country and travel elsewhere with their skills and capital so the tax system is subject to competition. Then it's fine with me. But, perhaps the focus should be turned and instead focus on how to ensure that existing tax revenue are used and allocated efficiently by the government. Every thriving society needs a Hank Rearden who feels fairly treated and sees that his tax revenue is being used effectively, without him society will decay.

[@mytimetravellingdog]

they won't though cause people don't just uproot and move cause they can. Especially below the super rich.

[@aminulhussain2277]

'Hank Reardon' So you're a moron who has no idea how an economy actually functions.

[@glennnielsen8054]

@@aminulhussain2277 Thanks for your reply. You are welcome to elaborate on what you mean by that.

[@rayweil9942]

Am pretty sure very wealthy people have the options of multiple passports.

[@glennnielsen8054]

@@rayweil9942 Yes, they probably can, but that is because they are citizens who have something to offer and who are valuable to society.

[@alexzink4451]

The question is how you define wealth. They've recently introduced a progressive tax system in my country, and now I have to pay a higher tax. Admittedly, I have a Senior Engineer salary, but I've worked hard for years to achieve it. I, for the life of me, can't see why I should pay more than those deadbeats who didn't even go to college which is free in my country. If everyone plays 20%, it already means that rich people pay more. Just focus on making those billionaires pull their share. Try closing legal loopholes and outlawing transferring money to tax havens. Taxing the rich in many cases just means punishing the people who work harder than others.

[@thesunshinehome]

Instead of trying to tax people more, how about the government starts spending its money more wisely

[@SusCalvin]

These blokes are talking about possibly lowering income tax. You're saying you must keep paying income tax so tax on stock and real estate can remain low.

[@kebacek]

@@SusCalvin "These blokes are talking about possibly lowering income tax." That's a nice argument on paper, but I'm afraid politicians would promise to give the money to the poor, but then the government would just spend and mismanage it elsewhere.

[@SusCalvin]

@@kebacek You can decide income tax should remain to subsidize low property tax. And really buy into depoliticized apathy.

[@HewleyDoeAndBond]

Taxing Big Corporations and the Wealthy will only result in higher prices for the services and goods provided to lower income people. It does not solve any problems and government has many more useful and tactful ways of reducing debt and raising capital than trying to prick from the countrymen their well earned purses. This is not for debate.

[@Jeremy64444]

In answer to the idea they would move too Portugal. High wealth people create their own unique problems for a city. They cause house prices to become unaffordable, they buy up homes to rent on AirBnB. They buy business, farms , vineyards. They privatise beaches, marina's and forest walks. Local politicians soon realise that they are a unmitigated headache. There is no such thing as trickle down economics. Portugal would soon introduce a wealth tax. As for moving to Dubai etc. They are welcome to it, 40 degree heat and sand storms. If you taxed them a bit extra, they would still live in the UK. Because in comparison, everywhere else is rubbish.

[@SodViber]

There is no need to move to Portugal: anyone in the EU can buy houses in Portugal and push-up prices in Portugal without even moving there because of the right to roam

[@davecap2641]

Like the idea very much, doubt any government would have the courage to implement it.

[@homergee3381]

many did, many failed. Personal taxation is a different from company taxation, let companies thrive but tax people the same and the motivation will change completely.

[@tameem557]

You can't discuss wealth tax without discussing the means by which this wealth is created! Lots of wealth are made on the back of the government, bailouts, subsidies, the concept of "too big to fail" and many other ways (let alone lobbying for more anti wealth tax laws). The means that the majority of ppl are not able to have access to. Plus that anti-wealth tax ppl are missing one important point, that has been mentioned in this video, which is that wealth tax is healthier to the overall economy than just taxing the income. Especially in these days. Inflation is hitting all time highs, income is not increasing, yet still taxable, ppl are left with money that has less purchase power with time, more working hours, less health care, more recession, more expensive stuff, and the loop continues. The value must be seen in other figures, not just GDP and numbers in banks. it must be discussed in healthcare, housing, quality of life, unemployment rate, etc. Otherwise, you will have the whole country suffering for the sake of the top 1% not to pay some tax that is not gonna affect their life in anyway. (which what is happening basically)

[@tameem557]

@@chiquita683 read my comment again pls. that's what I meant by the "means of this wealth creation! " many ppl do not name it loopholes, they called it being an "entrepreneur" or "successfully increasing wealth."

[@etobillions]

i find this ignorant. how is taxing the one percent gonna help the poor. show me this first then am all in for it.

[@zwanzikahatzel9296]

workers who actually work, i.e. they get money for the time and labour they put in, and don't own shares of the company should pay no income tax at all ever. tax should be paid on income-generating assets, such as land, buildings, capital, patents, etc. the worker already contributes to society with their time, sweat and tears.

[@A_New_Reality]

The problem with a wealth tax is that it’s an extra tax … on income earned that tax is already paid on. Wealth taxes simply lead to the rich just leaving, or claiming non dom status.

[@etobillions]

the government should learn to manage what it gets in the first place. show me that you are doing something and have fallen short, then i will gladly help.

[@Profilejc98]

So is VAT / sales tax

[@rosstatham439]

Often not so. Those with wealth above 2.5 million have many ways of doing tax not available to the average worker.

[@rosstatham439]

*dodging

[@beebobley9464]

Get rid of income tax and corporation tax. Replace them with a land value tax.

[@DEVIL4POSTER]

11:40 "it's incredibly cruel..." But what it's not incredibly cruel to do the same to the poor? 🤷

[@emperortomoto]

that woman is a psychopath

[@rhmendelson]

Isn’t the problem more that people don’t reinvest their wealth back in the economy? Having hoards of cash and investments that aren’t used to aid the economy but just sit in someone’s account seems to be the problem. 🤨 We should incentivize more capital investments that sustain and grow the economy.

[@kixswish]

Would love to see a sequel, commenting on the tax cuts that were announced last week..

[@911shamrage]

I am not an economist, but one thing I learned is that 'real wealth' should never be personalised. The rich people I knew, never owned their wealth; is there a difference in enjoying your wealth despite that its ownership is 5 trusts/companies away and on paper belongs to your cleaner? Another issue, why after people, whereas corporate wealth is 'free floating' over the planet... is morale more than responsibility?

[@anirprasadd]

Just make the rich pay their FAIR SHARE. Also, corporations need to be made to pay their FAIR SHARE. Elaborate corporate holding structures based in offshore tax havens allow the biggest companies to avoid hundreds of billions in taxes....

[@ewinslow822]

What is your fair share of what someone else has earned?

[@AN.K.77]

A wealth tax could help address economic inequality and fund public services. However, its implementation must be carefully designed. Effective measures are essential, and the benefits should be communicated to gain public support and ensure the revenue promotes greater equity and social welfare.