Economic Stress and System Change

[Son of Mathonwy]

I want to interject here, because I don't personally believe individually owned physical assets are a major problem. I, personally, don't see a wealth tax on property, cars, boats, etc., as being conductive to the type of society that I would want to build. Once someone has made their money, I think it's their money. My problem is with how they make that money.

I don't believe wealth should create wealth indefinitely, to the detriment of anyone who doesn't have wealth. And that's what it does right now, as companies beholden to stakeholders would rather slash budgets than pay employees more, hire more people, or spend more on creating better products or services that can have a positive impact on the world.

The massive corp. I work for are slashing budgets because of the RISK of REDUCED profit. Not because they're making a loss right now, or because there are any cash flow or budgetary issues. No, the cuts are because of shareholder panic over the value of their asset.

I would tax profit made on the stock market at higher than 50p.

I would levy a wealth tax on corporations sitting on money.

I would incentivise spending on research and payroll with tax breaks and payroll tax cuts.

I would look to introduce a large income tax - not profit tax - on any company that has an offshore entity. If there is no offshore entity, there's no need, the money will stay in the country.

I would probably raise both the top rate of tax AND the threshold. It should be at closer to 500,000...maybe that means introducing another tax band.

There are some very good benefits to starting business ideas in the UK already, but I would extend that, and also make it easier for non-residents. Small businesses are the backbone of an economy, so they need to be supported.

We have larger wealth inequality than income inequality, hence my thinking it's a problem. I agree it doesn't seem quite so worrying if the assets were all paid for through earnings, but a large part of asset values in the UK are from inflated land and property values (rather than earned), gains which are not taxed at all. And the really wealthy will shield their estates from inheritance tax via trusts and offshore company ownership, so wealth really builds up over generations.

This situation is unstable. In time it will lead to smaller and smaller numbers owning an increasing proportion of all wealth, until we return to a feudal system OR have a revolution. Better to fix it now, gradually.

Its where you set the threshold then in your model, and how do you filter out earned wealth vs your 'unearned' definition- and btw these gains can be taxed either as inheritance tax or capital gains if not your home. To achieve your more targeted objective requires a pretty sophisticated set up I'd think?
Here's a useful model I think (did my own homework for a change). I haven't checked the source

http://taxsimulator.ukwealth.tax/#/

Thanks for the link, it's very interesting. This document (linked on that site) is worth reading - recommending a one-off wealth tax to help pay for the Covid debt:

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

Re earned vs unearned wealth - sorry for any confusion - I was just saying that I can appreciate why it might seem more acceptable to tax unearned wealth. However I still think we should tax all (net) wealth, so there's no need to try to separate the two.

As per the linked doc above, there's something to be said for a one-off wealth tax vs annual. Nonetheless I would still want to have an annual one because I want this to have an ingoing impact (this is not a completely eccentric idea BTW, countries with wealth tax include Norway, France, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Argentina). Obviously a one-off wealth tax hit followed by a lower rate annual tax is an option.

[Banquo]

We have larger wealth inequality than income inequality, hence my thinking it's a problem. I agree it doesn't seem quite so worrying if the assets were all paid for through earnings, but a large part of asset values in the UK are from inflated land and property values (rather than earned), gains which are not taxed at all. And the really wealthy will shield their estates from inheritance tax via trusts and offshore company ownership, so wealth really builds up over generations.

This situation is unstable. In time it will lead to smaller and smaller numbers owning an increasing proportion of all wealth, until we return to a feudal system OR have a revolution. Better to fix it now, gradually.

Its where you set the threshold then in your model, and how do you filter out earned wealth vs your 'unearned' definition- and btw these gains can be taxed either as inheritance tax or capital gains if not your home. To achieve your more targeted objective requires a pretty sophisticated set up I'd think?
Here's a useful model I think (did my own homework for a change). I haven't checked the source

http://taxsimulator.ukwealth.tax/#/

Thanks for the link, it's very interesting. This document (linked on that site) is worth reading - recommending a one-off wealth tax to help pay for the Covid debt:

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

Re earned vs unearned wealth - sorry for any confusion - I was just saying that I can appreciate why it might seem more acceptable to tax unearned wealth. However I still think we should tax all (net) wealth, so there's no need to try to separate the two.

As per the linked doc above, there's something to be said for a one-off wealth tax vs annual. Nonetheless I would still want to have an annual one because I want this to have an ingoing impact (this is not a completely eccentric idea BTW, countries with wealth tax include Norway, France, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Argentina). Obviously a one-off wealth tax hit followed by a lower rate annual tax is an option.

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

[Stom]

Its where you set the threshold then in your model, and how do you filter out earned wealth vs your 'unearned' definition- and btw these gains can be taxed either as inheritance tax or capital gains if not your home. To achieve your more targeted objective requires a pretty sophisticated set up I'd think?
Here's a useful model I think (did my own homework for a change). I haven't checked the source

http://taxsimulator.ukwealth.tax/#/

Thanks for the link, it's very interesting. This document (linked on that site) is worth reading - recommending a one-off wealth tax to help pay for the Covid debt:

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

Re earned vs unearned wealth - sorry for any confusion - I was just saying that I can appreciate why it might seem more acceptable to tax unearned wealth. However I still think we should tax all (net) wealth, so there's no need to try to separate the two.

As per the linked doc above, there's something to be said for a one-off wealth tax vs annual. Nonetheless I would still want to have an annual one because I want this to have an ingoing impact (this is not a completely eccentric idea BTW, countries with wealth tax include Norway, France, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Argentina). Obviously a one-off wealth tax hit followed by a lower rate annual tax is an option.

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Thanks for the link, it's very interesting. This document (linked on that site) is worth reading - recommending a one-off wealth tax to help pay for the Covid debt:

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

Re earned vs unearned wealth - sorry for any confusion - I was just saying that I can appreciate why it might seem more acceptable to tax unearned wealth. However I still think we should tax all (net) wealth, so there's no need to try to separate the two.

As per the linked doc above, there's something to be said for a one-off wealth tax vs annual. Nonetheless I would still want to have an annual one because I want this to have an ingoing impact (this is not a completely eccentric idea BTW, countries with wealth tax include Norway, France, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Argentina). Obviously a one-off wealth tax hit followed by a lower rate annual tax is an option.

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

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.

We need to be careful with cases where the assets aren't liquid, as you say with pensioners whose only assets are their home and pension. In the suggested wealth tax doc they had this to say:

No one would be forced to sell their home to pay the wealth tax. If you genuinely could not pay
the tax out of your income and savings over the standard payment period of five years then a
‘statutory deferral scheme’ would apply under which the tax could be deferred until there were
sufficient liquid funds available, for example from the proceeds of a later sale. We have
tentatively suggested a generous test so that indefinite deferral would be available for anyone
whose wealth tax bill was more than 10% of the combined total of their net income (after all
other taxes) plus their liquid assets such as cash savings. This threshold could be adjusted by the
government if it chose.

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

The amounts could be deferred. Or the state could take a small stake in their home (we would only be talking about a small %) here. With a little thought there may be a number of solutions here.

As for banquo's point:

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

my thinking is that a large part of the wealth you mention is due to the increase in the value of their homes. This would not have been subject to capital gains. It would probably be exempt (to the first £1m) from inheritance tax. So why should it not be taxed?

[Banquo]

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

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.

We need to be careful with cases where the assets aren't liquid, as you say with pensioners whose only assets are their home and pension. In the suggested wealth tax doc they had this to say:

No one would be forced to sell their home to pay the wealth tax. If you genuinely could not pay
the tax out of your income and savings over the standard payment period of five years then a
‘statutory deferral scheme’ would apply under which the tax could be deferred until there were
sufficient liquid funds available, for example from the proceeds of a later sale. We have
tentatively suggested a generous test so that indefinite deferral would be available for anyone
whose wealth tax bill was more than 10% of the combined total of their net income (after all
other taxes) plus their liquid assets such as cash savings. This threshold could be adjusted by the
government if it chose.

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

The amounts could be deferred. Or the state could take a small stake in their home (we would only be talking about a small %) here. With a little thought there may be a number of solutions here.

As for banquo's point:

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

my thinking is that a large part of the wealth you mention is due to the increase in the value of their homes. This would not have been subject to capital gains. It would probably be exempt (to the first £1m) from inheritance tax. So why should it not be taxed?

Because they have saved for it, taken a risk in value rising or falling, and in a lot of cases (well mine) have sought to enhance value of this and other parts of my likely estate so my children can benefit; you whippersnappers don't remember negative equity and 14% interest rates....but I bloody do, as it bit us hard in '91 when we'd just started a family . Why should it be taxed other than as part of inheritance tax ....and frankly, there would be a lot of pensioners in this category. What threshold do you start taxing owned property at in your plan?

[Banquo]

Thanks for the link, it's very interesting. This document (linked on that site) is worth reading - recommending a one-off wealth tax to help pay for the Covid debt:

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

Re earned vs unearned wealth - sorry for any confusion - I was just saying that I can appreciate why it might seem more acceptable to tax unearned wealth. However I still think we should tax all (net) wealth, so there's no need to try to separate the two.

As per the linked doc above, there's something to be said for a one-off wealth tax vs annual. Nonetheless I would still want to have an annual one because I want this to have an ingoing impact (this is not a completely eccentric idea BTW, countries with wealth tax include Norway, France, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Argentina). Obviously a one-off wealth tax hit followed by a lower rate annual tax is an option.

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

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.

[Sandydragon]

Wealth taxes should be levied against properties that are well above local market value (acknowledging that the average price in different parts of the country are very different). And if care costs need to be taken into account then they should be before assessing the tax liability.

But the bigger issue is probably people gifting properties to their heirs and sidestepping this entirely, or setting up trusts. Any system you bring in will hit 'normal' people who own a house that happens to be worth £250k and not impact someone who has gotten good financial advice and sorted their inheritances out in advance. That's what makes the system unfair to so many people.

Better perhaps to have higher levels of council tax based on the cost of the property and tax through the life of the asset and then leave death charges alone (whilst removing the loopholes around inheritance tax).

[Stom]

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

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.

[Banquo]

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.

TBH I'd slightly quibble on stating that investing in the stock market is unearned wealth creation with no return to society- my mate does this to create his income retirement (which is taxed) and some capital growth (for his kids), and invests in quite a few start ups, some of which have generated a good income, or capital return, and some of which have tanked and taken his money with them. Investing in shares is not some sort of evil- as you have hinted at, its what 'some' companies do with their profits is what needs a re examination....and lead back to the original intent of capitalism, which whilst flawed, HAD driven rising living standards. So I think we more or less agree- I guess the big question is whether capitalism has a finite ceiling and its been reached.

[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.

TBH I'd slightly quibble on stating that investing in the stock market is unearned wealth creation with no return to society- my mate does this to create his income retirement (which is taxed) and some capital growth (for his kids), and invests in quite a few start ups, some of which have generated a good income, or capital return, and some of which have tanked and taken his money with them. Investing in shares is not some sort of evil- as you have hinted at, its what 'some' companies do with their profits is what needs a re examination....and lead back to the original intent of capitalism, which whilst flawed, HAD driven rising living standards. So I think we more or less agree- I guess the big question is whether capitalism has a finite ceiling and its been reached.

I believe that we don't live in a capitalist society anymore. That died as soon as rules were relaxed. Basically Thatcher/Reagan and the economic theory of trickle down. Over the past few decades, we've seen companies make record profits, while wages have stagnated, and corporation tax and dividend tax has been slashed.

I know it's always possible to find positive examples. BUT, there must be a way to differentiate. Investing in startups, for example, and small businesses, should be separated. Perhaps a difference in how your involvement works. I don't know more details, but I do know that the current system is what is causing pretty much every problem in the world right now.

I just calculated outgoings for us...and it's appalling.

[Banquo]

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.

TBH I'd slightly quibble on stating that investing in the stock market is unearned wealth creation with no return to society- my mate does this to create his income retirement (which is taxed) and some capital growth (for his kids), and invests in quite a few start ups, some of which have generated a good income, or capital return, and some of which have tanked and taken his money with them. Investing in shares is not some sort of evil- as you have hinted at, its what 'some' companies do with their profits is what needs a re examination....and lead back to the original intent of capitalism, which whilst flawed, HAD driven rising living standards. So I think we more or less agree- I guess the big question is whether capitalism has a finite ceiling and its been reached.

a- we've seen companies make record profits, while wages have stagnated, and corporation tax and dividend tax has been slashed.

b- I know it's always possible to find positive examples. BUT, there must be a way to differentiate. Investing in startups, for example, and small businesses, should be separated. Perhaps a difference in how your involvement works.
c- I don't know more details, but I do know that the current system is what is causing pretty much every problem in the world right now.

I just calculated outgoings for us...and it's appalling.

a- Certainly a problem, but frankly solving it just takes some will.
b- small and large investors should still remain part of the solution imo
c- every problem in the world seems a bit of a stretch; wealth inequality in the western world for sure, but its a big old world. Sure the globals have influence outside the west, but there is a big old world, and not sure you can blame them for what Russia and China (say) are up to.

[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.

We need to be careful with cases where the assets aren't liquid, as you say with pensioners whose only assets are their home and pension. In the suggested wealth tax doc they had this to say:

No one would be forced to sell their home to pay the wealth tax. If you genuinely could not pay
the tax out of your income and savings over the standard payment period of five years then a
‘statutory deferral scheme’ would apply under which the tax could be deferred until there were
sufficient liquid funds available, for example from the proceeds of a later sale. We have
tentatively suggested a generous test so that indefinite deferral would be available for anyone
whose wealth tax bill was more than 10% of the combined total of their net income (after all
other taxes) plus their liquid assets such as cash savings. This threshold could be adjusted by the
government if it chose.

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

The amounts could be deferred. Or the state could take a small stake in their home (we would only be talking about a small %) here. With a little thought there may be a number of solutions here.

As for banquo's point:

I think pinging people again for owning their own house/paying off the mortgage, saving and creating their own pensions is pretty unfair, but hey. How do you deal with retired people whose only assets are their pensions and homes, do you think?

my thinking is that a large part of the wealth you mention is due to the increase in the value of their homes. This would not have been subject to capital gains. It would probably be exempt (to the first £1m) from inheritance tax. So why should it not be taxed?

Because they have saved for it, taken a risk in value rising or falling, and in a lot of cases (well mine) have sought to enhance value of this and other parts of my likely estate so my children can benefit; you whippersnappers don't remember negative equity and 14% interest rates....but I bloody do, as it bit us hard in '91 when we'd just started a family . Why should it be taxed other than as part of inheritance tax ....and frankly, there would be a lot of pensioners in this category. What threshold do you start taxing owned property at in your plan?

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.

[Sandydragon]

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.

[Banquo]

We need to be careful with cases where the assets aren't liquid, as you say with pensioners whose only assets are their home and pension. In the suggested wealth tax doc they had this to say:


https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/Weal ... rt_FAQ.pdf

The amounts could be deferred. Or the state could take a small stake in their home (we would only be talking about a small %) here. With a little thought there may be a number of solutions here.

As for banquo's point:

my thinking is that a large part of the wealth you mention is due to the increase in the value of their homes. This would not have been subject to capital gains. It would probably be exempt (to the first £1m) from inheritance tax. So why should it not be taxed?

Because they have saved for it, taken a risk in value rising or falling, and in a lot of cases (well mine) have sought to enhance value of this and other parts of my likely estate so my children can benefit; you whippersnappers don't remember negative equity and 14% interest rates....but I bloody do, as it bit us hard in '91 when we'd just started a family . Why should it be taxed other than as part of inheritance tax ....and frankly, there would be a lot of pensioners in this category. What threshold do you start taxing owned property at in your plan?

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

[Sandydragon]

Because they have saved for it, taken a risk in value rising or falling, and in a lot of cases (well mine) have sought to enhance value of this and other parts of my likely estate so my children can benefit; you whippersnappers don't remember negative equity and 14% interest rates....but I bloody do, as it bit us hard in '91 when we'd just started a family . Why should it be taxed other than as part of inheritance tax ....and frankly, there would be a lot of pensioners in this category. What threshold do you start taxing owned property at in your plan?

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. 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.

This. Those people who pay taxes and work hard should not be punished unduly. I'd start at the tax avoidance layer and start closing loopholes.

[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. 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.

This. Those people who pay taxes and work hard should not be punished unduly. I'd start at the tax avoidance layer and start closing loopholes.

Totally. They could start with those pseudo investment schemes such as Jimmy Carr used- I got into a legit EIS once (and got caned) and there are enough tax safeguards to make them acceptable vehicles to invest in small businesses without creating these loophole schemes. I've an ex mate who avoided a load of tax in this way, that's why he's an ex mate.

[Sandydragon]

That's one of the reasons why I'm glad they finally imposed IR35 properly. That's effectively been a tax avoidance scheme for years.

[morepork]

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. 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.

This. Those people who pay taxes and work hard should not be punished unduly. I'd start at the tax avoidance layer and start closing loopholes.

Lobbyists and corporate overloads will never, ever permit those loopholes to be closed. Ever. You poor bastards in the UK have had these very interest groups able to blatantly instal puppets in the highest public office in the land with blatant ease.

[Which Tyler]

Lobbyists and corporate overloads will never, ever permit those loopholes to be closed. Ever. You poor bastards in the UK have had these very interest groups able to blatantly instal puppets in the highest public office in the land with blatant ease.

EU has closed several of the loopholes -why do you think we had to leave?

[Stom]

Lobbyists and corporate overloads will never, ever permit those loopholes to be closed. Ever. You poor bastards in the UK have had these very interest groups able to blatantly instal puppets in the highest public office in the land with blatant ease.

EU has closed several of the loopholes -why do you think we had to leave?

Because of the money laundering law the EU put in place...duh.

[Banquo]

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. 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.

This. Those people who pay taxes and work hard should not be punished unduly. I'd start at the tax avoidance layer and start closing loopholes.

Lobbyists and corporate overloads will never, ever permit those loopholes to be closed. Ever. You poor bastards in the UK have had these very interest groups able to blatantly instal puppets in the highest public office in the land with blatant ease.

In a blatant way ?

[morepork]

Dueling blatant baby.

[Banquo]

Dueling blatant baby.

Bizarre title for a TV series?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Because they have saved for it, taken a risk in value rising or falling, and in a lot of cases (well mine) have sought to enhance value of this and other parts of my likely estate so my children can benefit; you whippersnappers don't remember negative equity and 14% interest rates....but I bloody do, as it bit us hard in '91 when we'd just started a family . Why should it be taxed other than as part of inheritance tax ....and frankly, there would be a lot of pensioners in this category. What threshold do you start taxing owned property at in your plan?

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?

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.