The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should Britain introduce a 'Millionaires Tax'?

Poll

Should Britain have a Millionaires Tax?

We should introduce a Millionaires tax because the rich are still not paying their way and pulling their weight. Evidenced by the mass poverty and austerity.

The tax would be on an escalator starting from £1 M and increasing with every £500K above that. Tax fraud investigators would keep a close eye on any person who may be using off shore accounts.

It seems drastic but money is needed to provide affordable housing, reduce university tuition fees, welfare money, repair the NHS and help in the nationalisation of the railways etc.

Most of us are working and middle class and expect the upper class to pull their weight more.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for G-Sci
G-Sci
17
And what do you propose for those who don't work by choice and claim benefits? How are you going to make them contribute?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Higher income tax, take away exemptions, and higher council tax bands seems a simpler way.
No. Tax is theft, if you earn your money you deserve to keep it.
Millionaires are already taxed much more than than the rest of the population, both nominally and proportionally, what more do you want? I think a better suggestion is focusing on making sure corporations are not avoiding or evading corporation tax.
Reply 5
Avatar for Glib
Glib
13
What's the incentive to get financially rich if they are effectively being penalised by more taxes. If you are earning that much money, you are most likely to be in a position which is contributing more to the economy.
People earning 1mill a year are getting taxed pretty hard, they only take home around 500-600k afterwards.

Working on stopping rich people from dodging tax should be a higher priority. No point putting the tax there is they aren't planning on paying it away
Original post by georgem93
And what do you propose for those who don't work by choice and claim benefits? How are you going to make them contribute?


Posted from TSR Mobile


So long as there are too few jobs and too many people then there will always be unemployment.

Unless you are rich are upper class you should have solidarity with the poor and unemployed and those at the bottom of the pile. Britain needs more solidarity of we want to have the powerful unions we used to have that influence politics.
Reply 8
Avatar for G-Sci
G-Sci
17
Original post by Ambitious1999
So long as there are too few jobs and too many people then there will always be unemployment.

Unless you are rich are upper class you should have solidarity with the poor and unemployed and those at the bottom of the pile. Britain needs more solidarity of we want to have the powerful unions we used to have that influence politics.


There are plenty of jobs available, go on job sites you will see. Why must the rich who have worked extremely hard to get to the financial status they have pay for the laze of others?
It depends on what you mean by a 'Millionaires Tax'. I don't think a further increase in their income tax rates is justified because, as others have said, the rich already pay close to half their income in tax. Still, I think they should introduce a global wealth tax that targets people who have significant asset holdings. A lot of the wealthiest people in the world increase their wealth not because they work harder than others, but because they invest it in assets they know will rise in value e.g. real estate. As Piketty said, the rate of return on capital is greater than global growth rates, so the wealthy get richer disproportionately relative to the rest of the population simply by investing in more capital.

So I think they should introduce a tax that targets high-value capital. Not like the capital gains tax, which only comes into play when you sell the asset, but a low tax (5 - 15%) on owned capital. It's probably unreasonable given that it will almost definitely lead to capital flight etc., but it would be a start imo (cutting out avoidance/evasion is also important).
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 10
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by Ambitious1999
So long as there are too few jobs and too many people then there will always be unemployment.

Unless you are rich are upper class you should have solidarity with the poor and unemployed and those at the bottom of the pile. Britain needs more solidarity of we want to have the powerful unions we used to have that influence politics.


Why should the unions be deciding who is in government?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ambitious1999
So long as there are too few jobs and too many people then there will always be unemployment.

Unless you are rich are upper class you should have solidarity with the poor and unemployed and those at the bottom of the pile. Britain needs more solidarity of we want to have the powerful unions we used to have that influence politics.


You mean the unions that effectively increased unemployment by making the country grind to a halt?
Original post by konchesky09
It depends on what you mean by a 'Millionaires Tax'. I don't think a further increase in their income tax rates is justified because, as others have said, the rich already pay close to half their income in tax. Still, I think they should introduce a global wealth tax that targets people who have significant asset holdings. A lot of the wealthiest people in the world increase their wealth not because they work harder than others, but because they invest it in assets they know will rise in value e.g. real estate. As Piketty said, the rate of return on capital is greater than global growth rates, so the wealthy get richer disproportionately relative to the rest of the population simply by investing in more capital.

So I think they should introduce a tax that targets high-value capital. Not like the capital gains tax, which only comes into play when you sell the asset, but a low tax (5 - 15%) on owned capital. It's probably unreasonable given that it will almost definitely lead to capital flight etc., but it would be a start imo (cutting out avoidance/evasion is also important).


I would agree with a wealth tax. I mean everyone would love to get rich by investing their money in things like real estate but that excludes they very poor and unemployed who simply can't afford these investments.
Original post by Jammy Duel
You mean the unions that effectively increased unemployment by making the country grind to a halt?


They never increased unemployment it was a dirty trick by the government to refuse to accept demands by unions simply by shutting down the industries their members worked in. It was the Tory government in the 80s who refused to cooperate with unions and make fair negotiations, instead they shut down places like coal mines etc and made people jobless. If anything unions were campaigning against job cuts.
Original post by Ambitious1999
They never increased unemployment it was a dirty trick by the government to refuse to accept demands by unions simply by shutting down the industries their members worked in. It was the Tory government in the 80s who refused to cooperate with unions and make fair negotiations, instead they shut down places like coal mines etc and made people jobless. If anything unions were campaigning against job cuts.


You do realise the decline in the mining industry was BEFORE Thatcher?

The workforce peaked at about 1.2m around 1920, by the time of the depression it was below 1m. By the time WWII ended it was 700k and dropped by two thirds through the 60s because British coal mining simply was not economically viable, it was a case of people paying tax to sustain jobs that could not sustain themselves. Thatcher may have seen off another 150k, but over 1m from the peak had already gone. Coal had become a lot cheaper to import, and simply not in demand; in the first quarter of the last century production was almost 300m tonnes, consumption is now less than a quarter of that on a "good" year.

You seem to be saying that what should happen is the employer ALWAYS cave to the unions, and it is always the employer's fault when there are strikes, and that jobs should never be lost except for when a business collapses (taking all the jobs with it).

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ambitious1999
We should introduce a Millionaires tax because the rich are still not paying their way and pulling their weight. Evidenced by the mass poverty and austerity.

The tax would be on an escalator starting from £1 M and increasing with every £500K above that. Tax fraud investigators would keep a close eye on any person who may be using off shore accounts.

It seems drastic but money is needed to provide affordable housing, reduce university tuition fees, welfare money, repair the NHS and help in the nationalisation of the railways etc.

Most of us are working and middle class and expect the upper class to pull their weight more.


I'm a working class libertarian and understand that we need less tax and less regulation.

If we lower business tax to 5% the majority of European countries will move there HQ's to the UK which will provide more jobs.
Original post by Len Goodman
No. Tax is theft, if you earn your money you deserve to keep it.


An obviously ridiculous comment.
Original post by mojojojo101
An obviously ridiculous comment.


Why? What's the incentive in working your backside off to increase your salary if it's just going to be taken away by the govenment?
why?
millionaire don't steal their money, and therefore they have come to legitimately acquire their wealth. if you take somebody's legitimately acquired property, that is theft. there is no such thing as "fair taxation" in this regard because it is the same paradox as "fair theft". we can only come to *tolerate* taxation when it is sufficiently low so as to allow us our liberty while still maintaining a government strong enough to protect us from coercion. if you lose touch wih that fact, you are understanding taxation not as a maintenance mechanism for civilisation but rather nothing but a ****ing toy for elites. well I'm sorry but my money is mine, and his money is his, and you can't just steal from people to please yourself. my money is only my business, not yours.

I'll never understand how the left portrays LEGITIMATE ACQUISITION as selfish, whereas stealing other people's possessions for themselves is apparently moral!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mojojojo101
An obviously ridiculous comment.


The only way in which it isn't theft is via the "social contract" which exists purely to try to justify the application of altruistic ethics if we're totally honest.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you