Economic Stress and System Change

[Stom]

Earlier in this thread I suggested a lower threshold of £50-100k. This was a quick stab at it based on . . . well, the sort of quality hunch we like to rely on a RR .With a little more work I see that the median UK wealth is about £300k. Perhaps that's the place to start? Of course I'm happy to have make the tax progressive . . increasing from (say) 0.5% to 2% at the top. But deciding these rates and thresholds would require more research (than I can face doing).

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/savings-ac ... gs-uk#nogo
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

Yes, yes you still bear the scars of negative equity, fair enough , but you (and anyone else who has had a property for a decade or two, yes, me too) have probably been amply, no that doesn't do it justice, excessively rewarded for that choice. We both saved, bought a house, etc. A just reward for this sensible behaviour would be to have good interest on the savings and a house with the mortgage paid off. Not to have riches beyond the reach of most 20 year olds no matter how long they work. In order to have a truly aspirational society we need to give hope to all young people, not just those with well off parents.

Agreed on aspiration/hope- but your suggestion was a shotgun across a of ton people who have acquired some assets (you were specific on saying you'd include 'earned wealth'), even starting at £300k you hit my 85 year old mother in law whose only asset is her paid for house and a pension income with a retrospective annual bill of £2500 to £5000. I do have decent interest on savings, a planned pension and a paid off house, having gone through at least 10 years of scrimping and saving to cope with negative equity and high interest rates- yet you want to clobber me with an additional retrospective tax (over and above income tax I pay on pension income, and any inhertitance tax that may be due- and planned for) of north of £10k p.a. - having paid seven figures in income tax and NI in my 39 year working life. I don't think I've been excessively rewarded for what I've done, unless you can realise the value of the house. You'll end up punishing the cautious responsible savers, as the unearned wealth people (definition tbc) will disappear their assets pretty quickly.

As you say, the idea of a wealth tax needs thinking through properly, not just snuck away in a list of remedies to all the ills of the UK. I would be looking to get after genuinely unearned wealth and those who have built wealth through tax avoidance. Basically, don't come after me ye ba5tards

On the face of it I don't see a problem with taxing the wealthier half of the population. After all far poorer people pay income tax, and everyone pays VAT. And anyone without sufficient income could defer the tax, perhaps to be collected from their estates, in the case of pensioners.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the threshold is too low. Maybe the revenue that would be extracted from (say) the bottom 2/3 of the population wouldn't be worth the individual pain and the political difficulties. Would a higher threshold be acceptable? 500k? 1m? Exempt the first 300k from the tax? Could you imagine a level at which a wealth tax is acceptable? Would the idea of a one-off tax be better?

A wealth tax would hit people who are not wealthy but bought houses in the early 80s.

Many of these people are not what you would consider the problem, far from it. They’re who we should aspire to be.

That 400k-1m wrapped up in their home is not the problem at all.

Especially when they are either retired already or about to, and are looking forward to 20+ years living on £25,000-£30,000 a year. If they need to pay a wealth tax out of that…

No, it makes no sense unless you tax people on assets over 2m in value, but those people are likely to have those assets hidden.

So, no, I disagree with a wealth tax, I think it ignores the actual problem entirely.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I can't speak for others, but this is one reason I don't think a wealth tax is a good thing. My grandparents, for example, may have been hit with a wealth tax on their home. However, they died almost penniless - every value from that home was used to pay for their palliative care, except for what was left to buy somewhere for my uncle, who lived with them and is an alcoholic, so can't care for himself - I don't care about the semantics there, please.

However, under my system, pension pots would be almost wiped out...so it's really important to supplement income lost this way. Perhaps it's simply a case of giving a tax rebate on shareholder income for the over 65s, where the cut-off point rises by a year every year.

But you then screw the people thinking about retiring soon.

So you need to find a way to balance that out, while still killing the system.

I don't believe a government needs to balance the books, so to speak. From what economic theory I have read - and as my brief flirtation with economics came as part of studies in politics, not economics, that's self-taught mainly - there should be no need to balance the books for a sovereign state. Which is one big reason not to join the Eurozone.

So I would simply create a system to reimburse pension pots. Possibly up to a certain amount, dependent on the age of the individual. As an example, up to 30k a year, up to the age of x.

But I think it's vital we change away from the system we have where profits are the most important thing, as they should not be.

Spot on- whilst it may be right to forcibly redistribute the wealth of the very wealthy's 'unearned' income, in doing so via SOM's methodology you screw over a lot of people who have always tried to do the right thing- borrowing little, saving, and planning for retirement (and yes, they may be 'lucky' they can by dint of earning capacity, but coming at them again retrospectively feels deeply unfair and unworkable in the case of the retired with small incomes, but property). I can see you can fiddle with thresholds, and asset categories and relatively low rates of tax- but I can see a scenario where my wife's mum would have to sell the house they scrimped and saved to own outright to pay a retrospective tax not planned for as part of retirement. As I said, if you wanted to achieve the primary objective of great inequality of wealth distribution, you'd need a pretty sophisticated targeting system and valuation processes (esp for an annualised tax) so as to pass a fairness test imo. Other systems I have looked at eg France and Spain, focus on property over c2m euros net, and in the latter case have a kind of honour system for declaring your assets- and whilst 1% doesn't sound much, if you live for another 30 years in retirement say, its going to bite pretty hard.
I'm glad you took note of my pension pot whinge of a couple of years ago
Good debate to have though, a lot of thought and detail needs putting into this to make it even worth proceeding with more public debate.

Well, it's important that you take input from multiple sources and change your opinion, if need be.

On the idea of a wealth tax, I have the same problem with it I have with many 'solutions': it's solving a symptom, not the cause.

There is no issue with someone being wealthy. If I were to come up with an incredible idea that helped many people, made millions by producing this product that had a positive impact on people's lives, and paid my taxes...why should I then be taxed just because I am wealthy?

No, that's not the issue. And a wealth tax treats the hypothetical me the same as it treats someone who inherited money, invested it in the stock market and didn't contribute anything to society. Maybe they were even a politician pushing for less tax on shareholders...

No, you need system change. Away from this bastardised neo-capitalism that goes against everything capitalism itself should stand for. It's the 'American dream' again: the vision is that anyone can start a business and make their own way in the world. The reality is that massive corporations play fast and loose with the system and create massive inequality.

While I can argue that wealth distortions feed back into the system to make things worse (eg via the super rich funding think tanks which influence policy), to some extent I agree wealth levels are a symptom of a disfunctional system. However, as with many diseases, if the cause is difficult to treat then you go after the symptoms. Or you treat both simultaneously. In the case of unequal wealth we should treat the cause, but even if that was fixed how would we fix the damage already done, if not by a wealth tax?

I can see you don't have an objection with someone being wealthy (if they have come up with a brilliant idea etc), but there's wealthy and then there's Musk wealthy. In a world without billionaires, the Musks, Zuckerbergs and Gateses would be perfectly well rewarded with (I'd say) $10m. What reasonable requirements could anyone have which you couldn't buy with $10m? They're only really trying to outrich the other billionaires. If they were all merely multimillionaires they'd be happy to be at the top of that (significantly smaller) heap. But as it is they are like the new kings. They and their descendants will live on a different planet to the rest of us in perpetuity.

[Banquo]

Earlier in this thread I suggested a lower threshold of £50-100k. This was a quick stab at it based on . . . well, the sort of quality hunch we like to rely on a RR .With a little more work I see that the median UK wealth is about £300k. Perhaps that's the place to start? Of course I'm happy to have make the tax progressive . . increasing from (say) 0.5% to 2% at the top. But deciding these rates and thresholds would require more research (than I can face doing).

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/savings-ac ... gs-uk#nogo
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

Yes, yes you still bear the scars of negative equity, fair enough , but you (and anyone else who has had a property for a decade or two, yes, me too) have probably been amply, no that doesn't do it justice, excessively rewarded for that choice. We both saved, bought a house, etc. A just reward for this sensible behaviour would be to have good interest on the savings and a house with the mortgage paid off. Not to have riches beyond the reach of most 20 year olds no matter how long they work. In order to have a truly aspirational society we need to give hope to all young people, not just those with well off parents.

Agreed on aspiration/hope- but your suggestion was a shotgun across a of ton people who have acquired some assets (you were specific on saying you'd include 'earned wealth'), even starting at £300k you hit my 85 year old mother in law whose only asset is her paid for house and a pension income with a retrospective annual bill of £2500 to £5000. I do have decent interest on savings, a planned pension and a paid off house, having gone through at least 10 years of scrimping and saving to cope with negative equity and high interest rates- yet you want to clobber me with an additional retrospective tax (over and above income tax I pay on pension income, and any inhertitance tax that may be due- and planned for) of north of £10k p.a. - having paid seven figures in income tax and NI in my 39 year working life. I don't think I've been excessively rewarded for what I've done, unless you can realise the value of the house. You'll end up punishing the cautious responsible savers, as the unearned wealth people (definition tbc) will disappear their assets pretty quickly.

As you say, the idea of a wealth tax needs thinking through properly, not just snuck away in a list of remedies to all the ills of the UK. I would be looking to get after genuinely unearned wealth and those who have built wealth through tax avoidance. Basically, don't come after me ye ba5tards

On the face of it I don't see a problem with taxing the wealthier half of the population. After all far poorer people pay income tax, and everyone pays VAT. And anyone without sufficient income could defer the tax, perhaps to be collected from their estates, in the case of pensioners.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the threshold is too low. Maybe the revenue that would be extracted from (say) the bottom 2/3 of the population wouldn't be worth the individual pain and the political difficulties. Would a higher threshold be acceptable? 500k? 1m? Exempt the first 300k from the tax? Could you imagine a level at which a wealth tax is acceptable? Would the idea of a one-off tax be better?

Pragmatically its a case of diminishing returns against (costs of) setting up and running a system that imo does need to not punish people who have just done the right thing all their lives. Set the threshold high and you won't get enough back- the ones you are after will simply not conform (its in that model/paper), but lower it and you risk caning folks, even if what that means is effectively pulling inheritance tax forward . A one off tax imo would have to be pretty punitive to make it viable (housing/asset valuation etc etc) and again, you will be punishing people (and frightening some into just selling their houses, as per old school death duties). I'd pursue other options before a wealth tax- as you said before, chase the pi55 takers!

[Stom]

Spot on- whilst it may be right to forcibly redistribute the wealth of the very wealthy's 'unearned' income, in doing so via SOM's methodology you screw over a lot of people who have always tried to do the right thing- borrowing little, saving, and planning for retirement (and yes, they may be 'lucky' they can by dint of earning capacity, but coming at them again retrospectively feels deeply unfair and unworkable in the case of the retired with small incomes, but property). I can see you can fiddle with thresholds, and asset categories and relatively low rates of tax- but I can see a scenario where my wife's mum would have to sell the house they scrimped and saved to own outright to pay a retrospective tax not planned for as part of retirement. As I said, if you wanted to achieve the primary objective of great inequality of wealth distribution, you'd need a pretty sophisticated targeting system and valuation processes (esp for an annualised tax) so as to pass a fairness test imo. Other systems I have looked at eg France and Spain, focus on property over c2m euros net, and in the latter case have a kind of honour system for declaring your assets- and whilst 1% doesn't sound much, if you live for another 30 years in retirement say, its going to bite pretty hard.
I'm glad you took note of my pension pot whinge of a couple of years ago
Good debate to have though, a lot of thought and detail needs putting into this to make it even worth proceeding with more public debate.

Well, it's important that you take input from multiple sources and change your opinion, if need be.

On the idea of a wealth tax, I have the same problem with it I have with many 'solutions': it's solving a symptom, not the cause.

There is no issue with someone being wealthy. If I were to come up with an incredible idea that helped many people, made millions by producing this product that had a positive impact on people's lives, and paid my taxes...why should I then be taxed just because I am wealthy?

No, that's not the issue. And a wealth tax treats the hypothetical me the same as it treats someone who inherited money, invested it in the stock market and didn't contribute anything to society. Maybe they were even a politician pushing for less tax on shareholders...

No, you need system change. Away from this bastardised neo-capitalism that goes against everything capitalism itself should stand for. It's the 'American dream' again: the vision is that anyone can start a business and make their own way in the world. The reality is that massive corporations play fast and loose with the system and create massive inequality.

While I can argue that wealth distortions feed back into the system to make things worse (eg via the super rich funding think tanks which influence policy), to some extent I agree wealth levels are a symptom of a disfunctional system. However, as with many diseases, if the cause is difficult to treat then you go after the symptoms. Or you treat both simultaneously. In the case of unequal wealth we should treat the cause, but even if that was fixed how would we fix the damage already done, if not by a wealth tax?

I can see you don't have an objection with someone being wealthy (if they have come up with a brilliant idea etc), but there's wealthy and then there's Musk wealthy. In a world without billionaires, the Musks, Zuckerbergs and Gateses would be perfectly well rewarded with (I'd say) $10m. What reasonable requirements could anyone have which you couldn't buy with $10m? They're only really trying to outrich the other billionaires. If they were all merely multimillionaires they'd be happy to be at the top of that (significantly smaller) heap. But as it is they are like the new kings. They and their descendants will live on a different planet to the rest of us in perpetuity.

If they can make that money through creating value, I have no problem.

They don’t, though.

And PayPal, for instance, was very good back then. Now it’s pretty evil. So I don’t think the fact musk made billions from that sale should be punished. But his profits off the stock market wouldn’t have happened.

[Puja]

I totally agree that if we are to seriously tackle wealth inequality then the housing market is the place to start. Clearly there is a supply and demand issue as well which should be looked into alongside any tax changes. We also need to ensure that the housing market isn’t ruined by excessive stamp duty. Younger people wanting a house won’t get one if people elsewhere can’t upsize or downsize accordingly.

Personally I would:

Look at increasing inheritance tax slightly and introduce banding. And close the damn loopholes.

Allow more affordable housing to be built across the country, even in the bloody shores despite local opposition.

Review the private rental market and consider the ease by which buy to let mortgages can be limited. Although this must be done cautiously as those in rented accommodation now can’t suffer as a result. So before changing this I would

Build council houses and ensure they were affordable.

More social housing and options to purchase privately would reduce the demand be supply problem we have and make the system fairer. Inheritance tax changes would still allow the passing on of estates to family but would ensure that the current loopholes were removed so everyone has the same deal. Either that or change the council tax for something that pays into a national budget as well and just take more that way and ignore inheritance tax on property.

Agreed, this would deal with a big part of the problem. Fundamentally we need more housing. Decades of insufficient building need to be overturned. Green belt land probably needs to be used and if the market doesn't build enough (which let's face it, it doesn't) the government needs to step in, possibly with a nationally owned building co (since the problem with take decades to deal with).

Also, a serious effort needs to be made to spread businesses, industry and so people (and wealth) around the country. This needs to be a measurable thing rather than a slogan. Second homes should be seriously discouraged via punitive council tax levels.

The nationally owned building co is an excellent idea, because the market absolutely will not build enough, quickly enough, because the economic situation discourages it. House prices generally rise faster than inflation, so if you have land, you are better off building on it next year than you are this year, especially since, if you build too fast, you stop the price increases that you love so much. There's absolutely no incentive for buidlers to build at anything like the scale needed.

Puja

[Stom]

I totally agree that if we are to seriously tackle wealth inequality then the housing market is the place to start. Clearly there is a supply and demand issue as well which should be looked into alongside any tax changes. We also need to ensure that the housing market isn’t ruined by excessive stamp duty. Younger people wanting a house won’t get one if people elsewhere can’t upsize or downsize accordingly.

Personally I would:

Look at increasing inheritance tax slightly and introduce banding. And close the damn loopholes.

Allow more affordable housing to be built across the country, even in the bloody shores despite local opposition.

Review the private rental market and consider the ease by which buy to let mortgages can be limited. Although this must be done cautiously as those in rented accommodation now can’t suffer as a result. So before changing this I would

Build council houses and ensure they were affordable.

More social housing and options to purchase privately would reduce the demand be supply problem we have and make the system fairer. Inheritance tax changes would still allow the passing on of estates to family but would ensure that the current loopholes were removed so everyone has the same deal. Either that or change the council tax for something that pays into a national budget as well and just take more that way and ignore inheritance tax on property.

Agreed, this would deal with a big part of the problem. Fundamentally we need more housing. Decades of insufficient building need to be overturned. Green belt land probably needs to be used and if the market doesn't build enough (which let's face it, it doesn't) the government needs to step in, possibly with a nationally owned building co (since the problem with take decades to deal with).

Also, a serious effort needs to be made to spread businesses, industry and so people (and wealth) around the country. This needs to be a measurable thing rather than a slogan. Second homes should be seriously discouraged via punitive council tax levels.

The nationally owned building co is an excellent idea, because the market absolutely will not build enough, quickly enough, because the economic situation discourages it. House prices generally rise faster than inflation, so if you have land, you are better off building on it next year than you are this year, especially since, if you build too fast, you stop the price increases that you love so much. There's absolutely no incentive for buidlers to build at anything like the scale needed.

Puja

My parents still hold up the sale of council houses as a big reason they had our house. That policy was so damaging in the long run and is Thatcherism in a nutshell.

[Sandydragon]

But a very popular policy as people wanted to own homes. Clearly, the problem was that there was then insufficient council housing built to accommodate those who couldn't afford to get on the property ladder.

Puja's point about motivating building companies is a good one. Right now they can buy land and sit on it for 10 years waiting for the price to rise without any real effort. And often the houses they build have problems. A national building company, government owned but commercially operated model would work well, should counter this problem by buying land and building houses to target regardless of profitability (the house will still cover costs when sold so they won't lose money long term). It would need startup investment, but could easily be paying its own way in fairly short order.

Whilst we are on the subject of property, its also about time that empty properties were managed. I don't mean second homes but those where the property is empty and falling into disrepair over a period of years. The time allowed for the owner to sort it out must be reduced and the council buys the property (or the new house building company), pays the owner (if identifiable or puts money aside if not) and then renovates the property. Slum like houses only attract anti social behaviour but also mean thats one more home that can't be used by someone.

[Banquo]

Whilst we are on the subject of property, its also about time that empty properties were managed. I don't mean second homes but those where the property is empty and falling into disrepair over a period of years. The time allowed for the owner to sort it out must be reduced and the council buys the property (or the new house building company), pays the owner (if identifiable or puts money aside if not) and then renovates the property. Slum like houses only attract anti social behaviour but also mean thats one more home that can't be used by someone.

My son spent a couple of years helping out in that sector, working for a property guardianship charidee; great idea, but really solving a problem that shouldn't exist.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed on aspiration/hope- but your suggestion was a shotgun across a of ton people who have acquired some assets (you were specific on saying you'd include 'earned wealth'), even starting at £300k you hit my 85 year old mother in law whose only asset is her paid for house and a pension income with a retrospective annual bill of £2500 to £5000. I do have decent interest on savings, a planned pension and a paid off house, having gone through at least 10 years of scrimping and saving to cope with negative equity and high interest rates- yet you want to clobber me with an additional retrospective tax (over and above income tax I pay on pension income, and any inhertitance tax that may be due- and planned for) of north of £10k p.a. - having paid seven figures in income tax and NI in my 39 year working life. I don't think I've been excessively rewarded for what I've done, unless you can realise the value of the house. You'll end up punishing the cautious responsible savers, as the unearned wealth people (definition tbc) will disappear their assets pretty quickly.

As you say, the idea of a wealth tax needs thinking through properly, not just snuck away in a list of remedies to all the ills of the UK. I would be looking to get after genuinely unearned wealth and those who have built wealth through tax avoidance. Basically, don't come after me ye ba5tards

On the face of it I don't see a problem with taxing the wealthier half of the population. After all far poorer people pay income tax, and everyone pays VAT. And anyone without sufficient income could defer the tax, perhaps to be collected from their estates, in the case of pensioners.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the threshold is too low. Maybe the revenue that would be extracted from (say) the bottom 2/3 of the population wouldn't be worth the individual pain and the political difficulties. Would a higher threshold be acceptable? 500k? 1m? Exempt the first 300k from the tax? Could you imagine a level at which a wealth tax is acceptable? Would the idea of a one-off tax be better?

A wealth tax would hit people who are not wealthy but bought houses in the early 80s.

Many of these people are not what you would consider the problem, far from it. They’re who we should aspire to be.

That 400k-1m wrapped up in their home is not the problem at all.

Especially when they are either retired already or about to, and are looking forward to 20+ years living on £25,000-£30,000 a year. If they need to pay a wealth tax out of that…

No, it makes no sense unless you tax people on assets over 2m in value, but those people are likely to have those assets hidden.

So, no, I disagree with a wealth tax, I think it ignores the actual problem entirely.

Maybe we should aspire to be these people but young people today can't - that's the problem. Only the children of said people can, when they inherit the house.

However it's difficult to know how much revenue can be made out of this, as you say if the wealthier will be able to avoid it. I think it would be worth doing, particularly a one-off tax, but it's a guess on my part until I get my own compliant PM to carry out my radical policies .

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed on aspiration/hope- but your suggestion was a shotgun across a of ton people who have acquired some assets (you were specific on saying you'd include 'earned wealth'), even starting at £300k you hit my 85 year old mother in law whose only asset is her paid for house and a pension income with a retrospective annual bill of £2500 to £5000. I do have decent interest on savings, a planned pension and a paid off house, having gone through at least 10 years of scrimping and saving to cope with negative equity and high interest rates- yet you want to clobber me with an additional retrospective tax (over and above income tax I pay on pension income, and any inhertitance tax that may be due- and planned for) of north of £10k p.a. - having paid seven figures in income tax and NI in my 39 year working life. I don't think I've been excessively rewarded for what I've done, unless you can realise the value of the house. You'll end up punishing the cautious responsible savers, as the unearned wealth people (definition tbc) will disappear their assets pretty quickly.

As you say, the idea of a wealth tax needs thinking through properly, not just snuck away in a list of remedies to all the ills of the UK. I would be looking to get after genuinely unearned wealth and those who have built wealth through tax avoidance. Basically, don't come after me ye ba5tards

On the face of it I don't see a problem with taxing the wealthier half of the population. After all far poorer people pay income tax, and everyone pays VAT. And anyone without sufficient income could defer the tax, perhaps to be collected from their estates, in the case of pensioners.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the threshold is too low. Maybe the revenue that would be extracted from (say) the bottom 2/3 of the population wouldn't be worth the individual pain and the political difficulties. Would a higher threshold be acceptable? 500k? 1m? Exempt the first 300k from the tax? Could you imagine a level at which a wealth tax is acceptable? Would the idea of a one-off tax be better?

Pragmatically its a case of diminishing returns against (costs of) setting up and running a system that imo does need to not punish people who have just done the right thing all their lives. Set the threshold high and you won't get enough back- the ones you are after will simply not conform (its in that model/paper), but lower it and you risk caning folks, even if what that means is effectively pulling inheritance tax forward . A one off tax imo would have to be pretty punitive to make it viable (housing/asset valuation etc etc) and again, you will be punishing people (and frightening some into just selling their houses, as per old school death duties). I'd pursue other options before a wealth tax- as you said before, chase the pi55 takers!

Article 1 of my constitution for the UK .

[Banquo]

On the face of it I don't see a problem with taxing the wealthier half of the population. After all far poorer people pay income tax, and everyone pays VAT. And anyone without sufficient income could defer the tax, perhaps to be collected from their estates, in the case of pensioners.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the threshold is too low. Maybe the revenue that would be extracted from (say) the bottom 2/3 of the population wouldn't be worth the individual pain and the political difficulties. Would a higher threshold be acceptable? 500k? 1m? Exempt the first 300k from the tax? Could you imagine a level at which a wealth tax is acceptable? Would the idea of a one-off tax be better?

Pragmatically its a case of diminishing returns against (costs of) setting up and running a system that imo does need to not punish people who have just done the right thing all their lives. Set the threshold high and you won't get enough back- the ones you are after will simply not conform (its in that model/paper), but lower it and you risk caning folks, even if what that means is effectively pulling inheritance tax forward . A one off tax imo would have to be pretty punitive to make it viable (housing/asset valuation etc etc) and again, you will be punishing people (and frightening some into just selling their houses, as per old school death duties). I'd pursue other options before a wealth tax- as you said before, chase the pi55 takers!

Article 1 of my constitution for the UK .

Sure beats Hamilton

[cashead]

Agreed, this would deal with a big part of the problem. Fundamentally we need more housing. Decades of insufficient building need to be overturned. Green belt land probably needs to be used and if the market doesn't build enough (which let's face it, it doesn't) the government needs to step in, possibly with a nationally owned building co (since the problem with take decades to deal with).

Also, a serious effort needs to be made to spread businesses, industry and so people (and wealth) around the country. This needs to be a measurable thing rather than a slogan. Second homes should be seriously discouraged via punitive council tax levels.

The nationally owned building co is an excellent idea, because the market absolutely will not build enough, quickly enough, because the economic situation discourages it. House prices generally rise faster than inflation, so if you have land, you are better off building on it next year than you are this year, especially since, if you build too fast, you stop the price increases that you love so much. There's absolutely no incentive for buidlers to build at anything like the scale needed.

Puja

My parents still hold up the sale of council houses as a big reason they had our house. That policy was so damaging in the long run and is Thatcherism in a nutshell.

The free market is perfectly natural
Do you think that I'm some kind of dummy?
It's the ideal way to order the world
"Fuck the morals, does it make any money?"

It should be everyone's moral duty to dance on Thatcher's grave, the fucking piece of work.

Nothing will ever change either, as long as neolibs keep getting promoted and elected, other than futzing around with shit on the margins.

[Sandydragon]

On the face of it I don't see a problem with taxing the wealthier half of the population. After all far poorer people pay income tax, and everyone pays VAT. And anyone without sufficient income could defer the tax, perhaps to be collected from their estates, in the case of pensioners.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the threshold is too low. Maybe the revenue that would be extracted from (say) the bottom 2/3 of the population wouldn't be worth the individual pain and the political difficulties. Would a higher threshold be acceptable? 500k? 1m? Exempt the first 300k from the tax? Could you imagine a level at which a wealth tax is acceptable? Would the idea of a one-off tax be better?

A wealth tax would hit people who are not wealthy but bought houses in the early 80s.

Many of these people are not what you would consider the problem, far from it. They’re who we should aspire to be.

That 400k-1m wrapped up in their home is not the problem at all.

Especially when they are either retired already or about to, and are looking forward to 20+ years living on £25,000-£30,000 a year. If they need to pay a wealth tax out of that…

No, it makes no sense unless you tax people on assets over 2m in value, but those people are likely to have those assets hidden.

So, no, I disagree with a wealth tax, I think it ignores the actual problem entirely.

Maybe we should aspire to be these people but young people today can't - that's the problem. Only the children of said people can, when they inherit the house.

However it's difficult to know how much revenue can be made out of this, as you say if the wealthier will be able to avoid it. I think it would be worth doing, particularly a one-off tax, but it's a guess on my part until I get my own compliant PM to carry out my radical policies .

It would also help if you get people voted with as much regularity as the older generation. Statistically the older generations more frequently turn out at elections so politicians make a greater play for the grey vote.

If under 30s regularly voted it would make governments consider their needs a bit more.

[Puja]

A wealth tax would hit people who are not wealthy but bought houses in the early 80s.

Many of these people are not what you would consider the problem, far from it. They’re who we should aspire to be.

That 400k-1m wrapped up in their home is not the problem at all.

Especially when they are either retired already or about to, and are looking forward to 20+ years living on £25,000-£30,000 a year. If they need to pay a wealth tax out of that…

No, it makes no sense unless you tax people on assets over 2m in value, but those people are likely to have those assets hidden.

So, no, I disagree with a wealth tax, I think it ignores the actual problem entirely.

Maybe we should aspire to be these people but young people today can't - that's the problem. Only the children of said people can, when they inherit the house.

However it's difficult to know how much revenue can be made out of this, as you say if the wealthier will be able to avoid it. I think it would be worth doing, particularly a one-off tax, but it's a guess on my part until I get my own compliant PM to carry out my radical policies .

It would also help if you get people voted with as much regularity as the older generation. Statistically the older generations more frequently turn out at elections so politicians make a greater play for the grey vote.

If under 30s regularly voted it would make governments consider their needs a bit more.

Closed circle. Under 30s don't have any faith that anyone's going to listen to them, so they don't vote. Not helped by the fact that the only recent party leader to appear to be listening and speaking policies that excited them, was then ridiculed, mocked, and sold as a danger to the nation before being turfed out in favour of another boring man in a suit who sidelined anyone connected with the old regime and insisted he wasn't going to think of doing anything like that again.

Still, at least the youth vote got Rosie Duffield into Parliament for Canterbury. That's ended well, at least, with no negative repercussions for things that U30s tend to care about.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Maybe we should aspire to be these people but young people today can't - that's the problem. Only the children of said people can, when they inherit the house.

However it's difficult to know how much revenue can be made out of this, as you say if the wealthier will be able to avoid it. I think it would be worth doing, particularly a one-off tax, but it's a guess on my part until I get my own compliant PM to carry out my radical policies .

It would also help if you get people voted with as much regularity as the older generation. Statistically the older generations more frequently turn out at elections so politicians make a greater play for the grey vote.

If under 30s regularly voted it would make governments consider their needs a bit more.

Closed circle. Under 30s don't have any faith that anyone's going to listen to them, so they don't vote. Not helped by the fact that the only recent party leader to appear to be listening and speaking policies that excited them, was then ridiculed, mocked, and sold as a danger to the nation before being turfed out in favour of another boring man in a suit who sidelined anyone connected with the old regime and insisted he wasn't going to think of doing anything like that again.

Still, at least the youth vote got Rosie Duffield into Parliament for Canterbury. That's ended well, at least, with no negative repercussions for things that U30s tend to care about.

Puja

And to quote my dead grannie, that’s ‘cutting your nose off to spite your face’.

We are in a democracy and the route to change involves voting.

[Puja]

It would also help if you get people voted with as much regularity as the older generation. Statistically the older generations more frequently turn out at elections so politicians make a greater play for the grey vote.

If under 30s regularly voted it would make governments consider their needs a bit more.

Closed circle. Under 30s don't have any faith that anyone's going to listen to them, so they don't vote. Not helped by the fact that the only recent party leader to appear to be listening and speaking policies that excited them, was then ridiculed, mocked, and sold as a danger to the nation before being turfed out in favour of another boring man in a suit who sidelined anyone connected with the old regime and insisted he wasn't going to think of doing anything like that again.

Still, at least the youth vote got Rosie Duffield into Parliament for Canterbury. That's ended well, at least, with no negative repercussions for things that U30s tend to care about.

Puja

And to quote my dead grannie, that’s ‘cutting your nose off to spite your face’.

We are in a democracy and the route to change involves voting.

Easy to get disillusioned when the system we have in place makes so many votes pointless though.

I'm not defending not voting. But I can absolutely understand why U30s aren't enthused.

Puja

[Stom]

Closed circle. Under 30s don't have any faith that anyone's going to listen to them, so they don't vote. Not helped by the fact that the only recent party leader to appear to be listening and speaking policies that excited them, was then ridiculed, mocked, and sold as a danger to the nation before being turfed out in favour of another boring man in a suit who sidelined anyone connected with the old regime and insisted he wasn't going to think of doing anything like that again.

Still, at least the youth vote got Rosie Duffield into Parliament for Canterbury. That's ended well, at least, with no negative repercussions for things that U30s tend to care about.

Puja

And to quote my dead grannie, that’s ‘cutting your nose off to spite your face’.

We are in a democracy and the route to change involves voting.

Easy to get disillusioned when the system we have in place makes so many votes pointless though.

I'm not defending not voting. But I can absolutely understand why U30s aren't enthused.

Puja

And when we have a party system that allows them to choose leaders that don't represent you, the voter, while our political system favours 2 parties, making it tough to get anyone who fits your view into power at all.

At least over here, it has been possible to actually get elected. It's just that the u30s party turned out to a bunch of absolute lunatics who would have been worse than pretty much everyone except Fidesz...

[Stom]

The nationally owned building co is an excellent idea, because the market absolutely will not build enough, quickly enough, because the economic situation discourages it. House prices generally rise faster than inflation, so if you have land, you are better off building on it next year than you are this year, especially since, if you build too fast, you stop the price increases that you love so much. There's absolutely no incentive for buidlers to build at anything like the scale needed.

Puja

My parents still hold up the sale of council houses as a big reason they had our house. That policy was so damaging in the long run and is Thatcherism in a nutshell.

The free market is perfectly natural
Do you think that I'm some kind of dummy?
It's the ideal way to order the world
"Fuck the morals, does it make any money?"

It should be everyone's moral duty to dance on Thatcher's grave, the fucking piece of work.

Nothing will ever change either, as long as neolibs keep getting promoted and elected, other than futzing around with shit on the margins.

That's kind of what I'm talking about, though: what are the steps we need to take to basically reverse decades of Thatcherism/Reaganism? As, and I've said this before to much derision, most societal problems we have right now can be traced back to them and their policies.