LT wrote:

RRSTDV8 wrote:

The only way to help the bottom end without squeezing the middle majority, is to up the tax take from the top end. I think we should have a "if you're a Brit then you pay tax no matter where you live" system. You pay local taxes and then you pay to HMRC any difference between the local and the UK taxation amounts. It instantly catches the off shored wealth that is made here but hidden away.

There is also the general point about why billionaires are allowed to even be billionaires. At that level of wealth it's pure status - "my dick is bigger than yours" type stuff. Sure, some millions in the bank is ok but no one needs or should have wealth that is greater than dozens of countries' GDPs. There is no reasonable justification for it.

Deciding a maximum amount of wealth anyone should have is a very slippery slope.

Do we really need to drive Land Rovers?

Do you carry on running your business, that might be a big employer and contributes £m’s to the revenue, when you reach the maximum wealth threshold? What’s the incentive?

LT wrote:

Hmmm, the total tax contribution (TTC) to the revenue of the 100 Group was £77.1bn in 2020/21.

RRSTDV8 wrote:

LT wrote:

RRSTDV8 wrote:

The only way to help the bottom end without squeezing the middle majority, is to up the tax take from the top end. I think we should have a "if you're a Brit then you pay tax no matter where you live" system. You pay local taxes and then you pay to HMRC any difference between the local and the UK taxation amounts. It instantly catches the off shored wealth that is made here but hidden away.

There is also the general point about why billionaires are allowed to even be billionaires. At that level of wealth it's pure status - "my dick is bigger than yours" type stuff. Sure, some millions in the bank is ok but no one needs or should have wealth that is greater than dozens of countries' GDPs. There is no reasonable justification for it.

Deciding a maximum amount of wealth anyone should have is a very slippery slope.

Do we really need to drive Land Rovers?

Do you carry on running your business, that might be a big employer and contributes £m’s to the revenue, when you reach the maximum wealth threshold? What’s the incentive?

You either have a free-for-all and the vast majority end up getting increasingly shafted, or you have some form of limit. We do it to companies - a windfall tax is nothing more than society saying "you've got too much". We do it to individuals too, effectively, with things like inheritance tax - society says "you've got enough now so pay some of it over to society". Heck, we do it to everyone in some form - stepped taxation is effectively setting a limit on what is considered ok to earn before you hand some over to society. We could simply take that further by having a number of steps that tend toward, if not reach, 100% taxation.

I can make a reasonable argument for a person to drive a certain car, I struggle to see any reasonable argument for someone having tens of billions of pounds/dollars. It's interesting that a number of the hyper-wealthy are now standing up and saying "tax us more than you are". They are well aware that they don't need to have billions in the bank because there is no reasonable way anyone person can spend that much money. It's just a way of showing the world that you've been "successful" in a very narrow definition of the word.

Look at the billionaires that now fund charities with big sums / set up foundations, etc.. That's all very worthy but it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Giving money to charity to help people is too late. That money is needed by society to stop the charity cases happening in the first place.

As for the incentive - the type of person that generates these types of bank balances (yes, I know it's not really money in the bank) are the type that would drive on with business building anyway. It's their thing. It's what gets them out of bed every day.

I can also make a reasonable argument both for and against a person driving a certain car, as I can for someone having tens of billions of pounds/dollars.

As for charities, if we always had sage and prudent governments in charge, then yes they'd be less need for them. As it is we don't and never have and many people, myself included, prefer to donate to charities than trust the government to spend additional taxes wisely.

There should be far better public services in the UK and a simpler, fairer, better tax system. But suggesting a cap on wealth is in my opinion as dangerous as saying that nobody needs to drive a Range Rover.

Moleshome wrote:

I'd argue that what's needed is not a cap on individual wealth but measures to ensure a more equitable sharing of that wealth amongst the people that generate it. It just cannot be right that the owners of these companies are amassing vast personal fortunes at the same time as their employees are having to work second jobs and/or rely on the benefits system.

RRSTDV8 wrote:

I think the issue is nicely summed up by the fact that the department dealing with employees used to be called "personnel" and now is "human resources". Companies treat their staff as nothing better than the computers on the desk. They're just a resource. Something to be used up.