Economic Stress and System Change

[Stom]

I wanted to post this somewhere, and this felt a good place.

Across the world, we're faced with huge inflation. Here in Hungary, food inflation is creeping up toward 100% year on year. And wages are stagnant.

I currently work for a multinational company, and over the past month, workers have made it clear that this is not acceptable: that wages need to rise as we're being crushed by inflation. Yet today, the CEO announced that the company will be making cuts due to 'stakeholder pressure'.

This is repeated elsewhere.

I applied for a job at another company. I got to the second round, but before the interview, they said they were no longer hiring for the position. I have a friend who worked there, so talked to him about it. They were hiring people, new hires had started on the Monday, and on the Tuesday, they fired 80 staff, including my friend AND the new hires who started on the Monday.

Quiet quitting has become a huge phenomenon, with young people more and more likely to slack off at work rather than put in overtime they'll never be paid for. There are online communities around making sure you get everything you're due from your employer. And more and more, young people are looking for new ways to earn the money they need to survive.

Meanwhile, large corporations are making larger and larger profits.

It feels like we're at something of a tipping point. That there has to be a change of system. It's not the poor getting poorer, it's the average person becoming poor. As a colleague of mine said, we're now the poor, us who have to decide not to have eggs for breakfast because it's too expensive.

So...what do others think? Are we at breaking point yet? Or when is it coming? Because I can't see any way to avoid it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I wanted to post this somewhere, and this felt a good place.

Across the world, we're faced with huge inflation. Here in Hungary, food inflation is creeping up toward 100% year on year. And wages are stagnant.

I currently work for a multinational company, and over the past month, workers have made it clear that this is not acceptable: that wages need to rise as we're being crushed by inflation. Yet today, the CEO announced that the company will be making cuts due to 'stakeholder pressure'.

This is repeated elsewhere.

I applied for a job at another company. I got to the second round, but before the interview, they said they were no longer hiring for the position. I have a friend who worked there, so talked to him about it. They were hiring people, new hires had started on the Monday, and on the Tuesday, they fired 80 staff, including my friend AND the new hires who started on the Monday.

Quiet quitting has become a huge phenomenon, with young people more and more likely to slack off at work rather than put in overtime they'll never be paid for. There are online communities around making sure you get everything you're due from your employer. And more and more, young people are looking for new ways to earn the money they need to survive.

Meanwhile, large corporations are making larger and larger profits.

It feels like we're at something of a tipping point. That there has to be a change of system. It's not the poor getting poorer, it's the average person becoming poor. As a colleague of mine said, we're now the poor, us who have to decide not to have eggs for breakfast because it's too expensive.

So...what do others think? Are we at breaking point yet? Or when is it coming? Because I can't see any way to avoid it.

Without coming up with any radical suggestions, what you need (and what we need in the UK) is a more left wing government, one that redistributes the wealth more, which does not suppress workers or dissenters, one that pays generously to the unemployed, does not allow poverty and is not in hock to the rich.

If you're looking for more radical solution for high inflation we could consider (moderate) price controls on staple goods, set so they remain profitable but the margin is kept low. Prices would have to be carefully managed to avoid shortages.

[Stom]

No, it's economic system change that's needed.

Low corporation tax and a focus on making profit for shareholders means that companies will always look to cut wages and work together to twist the market toward higher profits. They can work together to keep wages low. For instance now in Hungary. All the multis just say: we pay wages comparable to the market. Of course you do, you set the bloody market rate. So it never goes up. In huge countries like the USA or even the UK, that's not a big problem as there are plenty of jobs and plenty of workers, but in smaller countries where there aren't many jobs nor workers...you have an issue.

We see protests all the time, and the focus is almost exclusively on human rights and the right to a better life. It feels like we're close to breaking point.

But I see that's not aped in the UK...Aldous Huxley comes to pass yet again.

[Son of Mathonwy]

No, it's economic system change that's needed.

Low corporation tax and a focus on making profit for shareholders means that companies will always look to cut wages and work together to twist the market toward higher profits. They can work together to keep wages low. For instance now in Hungary. All the multis just say: we pay wages comparable to the market. Of course you do, you set the bloody market rate. So it never goes up. In huge countries like the USA or even the UK, that's not a big problem as there are plenty of jobs and plenty of workers, but in smaller countries where there aren't many jobs nor workers...you have an issue.

We see protests all the time, and the focus is almost exclusively on human rights and the right to a better life. It feels like we're close to breaking point.

But I see that's not aped in the UK...Aldous Huxley comes to pass yet again.

If you're going to dismiss left wing policies you ought to come up with an argument.

For your particular problem of companies focusing on shareholders only and treating employees badly how about support for trade unions including representation at board level?

[Sandydragon]

Automation.

Universal credit.

I’ll just toss those in here.

[Stom]

No, it's economic system change that's needed.

Low corporation tax and a focus on making profit for shareholders means that companies will always look to cut wages and work together to twist the market toward higher profits. They can work together to keep wages low. For instance now in Hungary. All the multis just say: we pay wages comparable to the market. Of course you do, you set the bloody market rate. So it never goes up. In huge countries like the USA or even the UK, that's not a big problem as there are plenty of jobs and plenty of workers, but in smaller countries where there aren't many jobs nor workers...you have an issue.

We see protests all the time, and the focus is almost exclusively on human rights and the right to a better life. It feels like we're close to breaking point.

But I see that's not aped in the UK...Aldous Huxley comes to pass yet again.

If you're going to dismiss left wing policies you ought to come up with an argument.

For your particular problem of companies focusing on shareholders only and treating employees badly how about support for trade unions including representation at board level?

Because that's treating a symptom, not a cause?

I believe, quite strongly, that we need a change in how money is viewed, what its purpose is, and what it can do for people.

While I was very sceptical to begin with, I have come around and am now completely on board the idea of a universal basic wage. I feel every human should have enough that they can live a basic life. If that is not enough - and it should not be for nearly all people - then they can choose to work to top up that income.

That needs to be funded, which is why I think corporation tax should be drastically increased, while a company income tax should also be levied on all income for companies with turnover of more than, let's say, ten million a month. In fact, a company income tax could be calculated based upon companies with turnover in the hundreds of millions a year, with discounts given depending on the percentage of turnover dedicated to wages and research or maintenance.

Basically, I feel like the current shareholder system creates a world in which the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer.

Of course, you'd need to find a way to 'safeguard' pensions, which would be instantly decimated. Some kind of levy could be put in place as a one off, to offset these losses.

But there needs to be drastic change and it needs to happen now, or we're not just going to have a lost generation, but a deadbeat generation.

[morepork]

You are way too late. The financial sector has owned most prominent "democracies" for over 30 years now. They are just not particularly interested in hiding it any more.

[Puja]

Automation.

Universal credit.

I’ll just toss those in here.

That does feel like the obvious endpoint answer (assuming you mean UBI rather than Universal Credit), but how one gets there is the tricky bit. With so much capital in the hands of so few, and a public that is not utterly outraged at the concept of a billionaire, let alone a multi-multi-billionaire, I don't see how it can function. Mind, the same is true of capitalism under these circumstances, which is only still functioning on inertia right now.

Mindset is a big thing with this issue. People are indoctrinated that this kind of capitalism is the only option and few even consider that an alternative exists, let alone might be better. The talk about benefits and "encouraging people into work" and "making sure people don't just stay on benefits", without ever a question of *why* we believe that everyone *must* have a job and that it is inherently better, for everybody, to work rather than not work.

Except if they're women with children, of course, who we're quite happy to yeet out of the workforce because fuck affordable childcare. Far better to bully disabled people into being economically productive with the threat of starvation.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

No, it's economic system change that's needed.

Low corporation tax and a focus on making profit for shareholders means that companies will always look to cut wages and work together to twist the market toward higher profits. They can work together to keep wages low. For instance now in Hungary. All the multis just say: we pay wages comparable to the market. Of course you do, you set the bloody market rate. So it never goes up. In huge countries like the USA or even the UK, that's not a big problem as there are plenty of jobs and plenty of workers, but in smaller countries where there aren't many jobs nor workers...you have an issue.

We see protests all the time, and the focus is almost exclusively on human rights and the right to a better life. It feels like we're close to breaking point.

But I see that's not aped in the UK...Aldous Huxley comes to pass yet again.

If you're going to dismiss left wing policies you ought to come up with an argument.

For your particular problem of companies focusing on shareholders only and treating employees badly how about support for trade unions including representation at board level?

Because that's treating a symptom, not a cause?

I believe, quite strongly, that we need a change in how money is viewed, what its purpose is, and what it can do for people.

While I was very sceptical to begin with, I have come around and am now completely on board the idea of a universal basic wage. I feel every human should have enough that they can live a basic life. If that is not enough - and it should not be for nearly all people - then they can choose to work to top up that income.

That needs to be funded, which is why I think corporation tax should be drastically increased, while a company income tax should also be levied on all income for companies with turnover of more than, let's say, ten million a month. In fact, a company income tax could be calculated based upon companies with turnover in the hundreds of millions a year, with discounts given depending on the percentage of turnover dedicated to wages and research or maintenance.

Basically, I feel like the current shareholder system creates a world in which the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer.

Of course, you'd need to find a way to 'safeguard' pensions, which would be instantly decimated. Some kind of levy could be put in place as a one off, to offset these losses.

But there needs to be drastic change and it needs to happen now, or we're not just going to have a lost generation, but a deadbeat generation.

OK sure but I would say that universal basic wage is a policy much more likely to be introduced by a left wing rather than right wing government, so voting for the left would be a good start.

I agree that some decent level of minimum income is extremely important (whether it's called UBI or benefit), set up so that it tapers away as your regular income grows, but you would always have some financial reward for working harder.

I wouldn't tax company turnover because that could put companies out of business (which really isn't good for tax revenues in the long run) - although I appreciate that there is a problem with how much tax the likes of Amazon are paying, I think that's more a problem with how (and where) profit is recognized. I don't have a problem with corporation tax going up though.

However I'd rather raise the tax take from 1) income tax on higher earners, 2) ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed equally, 3) green/carbon taxes, 4) windfall tax on excessive profits, 5) wealth tax and 6) closing tax avoidance loopholes (particularly involving tax havens).

[Banquo]

If you're going to dismiss left wing policies you ought to come up with an argument.

For your particular problem of companies focusing on shareholders only and treating employees badly how about support for trade unions including representation at board level?

Because that's treating a symptom, not a cause?

I believe, quite strongly, that we need a change in how money is viewed, what its purpose is, and what it can do for people.

While I was very sceptical to begin with, I have come around and am now completely on board the idea of a universal basic wage. I feel every human should have enough that they can live a basic life. If that is not enough - and it should not be for nearly all people - then they can choose to work to top up that income.

That needs to be funded, which is why I think corporation tax should be drastically increased, while a company income tax should also be levied on all income for companies with turnover of more than, let's say, ten million a month. In fact, a company income tax could be calculated based upon companies with turnover in the hundreds of millions a year, with discounts given depending on the percentage of turnover dedicated to wages and research or maintenance.

Basically, I feel like the current shareholder system creates a world in which the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer.

Of course, you'd need to find a way to 'safeguard' pensions, which would be instantly decimated. Some kind of levy could be put in place as a one off, to offset these losses.

But there needs to be drastic change and it needs to happen now, or we're not just going to have a lost generation, but a deadbeat generation.

OK sure but I would say that universal basic wage is a policy much more likely to be introduced by a left wing rather than right wing government, so voting for the left would be a good start.

I agree that some decent level of minimum income is extremely important (whether it's called UBI or benefit), set up so that it tapers away as your regular income grows, but you would always have some financial reward for working harder.

I wouldn't tax company turnover because that could put companies out of business (which really isn't good for tax revenues in the long run) - although I appreciate that there is a problem with how much tax the likes of Amazon are paying, I think that's more a problem with how (and where) profit is recognized. I don't have a problem with corporation tax going up though.

However I'd rather raise the tax take from 1) income tax on higher earners, 2) ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed equally, 3) green/carbon taxes, 4) windfall tax on excessive profits, 5) wealth tax and 6) closing tax avoidance loopholes (particularly involving tax havens).

Genuine q as you've just slid wealth tax in there ......how do you see that as being implemented, assets, thresholds etc, one off or repeated? and a secondary- how do you define 'excessive profits'?

[Stom]

Actually, that's a good point, and one I didn't think of... tax income from dividends or trading of shares as top tier no matter what. So 50p, always.

That's one way to do it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Because that's treating a symptom, not a cause?

I believe, quite strongly, that we need a change in how money is viewed, what its purpose is, and what it can do for people.

While I was very sceptical to begin with, I have come around and am now completely on board the idea of a universal basic wage. I feel every human should have enough that they can live a basic life. If that is not enough - and it should not be for nearly all people - then they can choose to work to top up that income.

That needs to be funded, which is why I think corporation tax should be drastically increased, while a company income tax should also be levied on all income for companies with turnover of more than, let's say, ten million a month. In fact, a company income tax could be calculated based upon companies with turnover in the hundreds of millions a year, with discounts given depending on the percentage of turnover dedicated to wages and research or maintenance.

Basically, I feel like the current shareholder system creates a world in which the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer.

Of course, you'd need to find a way to 'safeguard' pensions, which would be instantly decimated. Some kind of levy could be put in place as a one off, to offset these losses.

But there needs to be drastic change and it needs to happen now, or we're not just going to have a lost generation, but a deadbeat generation.

OK sure but I would say that universal basic wage is a policy much more likely to be introduced by a left wing rather than right wing government, so voting for the left would be a good start.

I agree that some decent level of minimum income is extremely important (whether it's called UBI or benefit), set up so that it tapers away as your regular income grows, but you would always have some financial reward for working harder.

I wouldn't tax company turnover because that could put companies out of business (which really isn't good for tax revenues in the long run) - although I appreciate that there is a problem with how much tax the likes of Amazon are paying, I think that's more a problem with how (and where) profit is recognized. I don't have a problem with corporation tax going up though.

However I'd rather raise the tax take from 1) income tax on higher earners, 2) ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed equally, 3) green/carbon taxes, 4) windfall tax on excessive profits, 5) wealth tax and 6) closing tax avoidance loopholes (particularly involving tax havens).

Genuine q as you've just slid wealth tax in there ......how do you see that as being implemented, assets, thresholds etc, one off or repeated? and a secondary- how do you define 'excessive profits'?

I don't have one plan for wealth taxes, I just think the huge wealth inequality in the country needs to be tackled and would help tax revenues.

One of the big issues is disclosure - how do we actually determine the wealth held by individuals, particularly if held offshore, even more so if in tax havens?

But assuming we can get some measure of the assets held by individuals I'd say a take of something of the order of 0.5 - 1% per annum. For simplicity there would be a lower threshold, maybe £50-100k net assets below which there is nothing to pay.

Another related idea would be to make a basic income taper off because of an individual's wealth level rather than income level.

Windfall taxes are one-off things so don't need a careful definition of 'excessive profits'. I take the term to mean profits above those which have normally been possible and/or have arisen through luck rather than skill or effort. It's generally clear when excessive profits are being made - as it is with fossil fuel extractors at the moment (there is also the additional justification that the profit-takers are actively impoverishing the nation).

[Banquo]

OK sure but I would say that universal basic wage is a policy much more likely to be introduced by a left wing rather than right wing government, so voting for the left would be a good start.

I agree that some decent level of minimum income is extremely important (whether it's called UBI or benefit), set up so that it tapers away as your regular income grows, but you would always have some financial reward for working harder.

I wouldn't tax company turnover because that could put companies out of business (which really isn't good for tax revenues in the long run) - although I appreciate that there is a problem with how much tax the likes of Amazon are paying, I think that's more a problem with how (and where) profit is recognized. I don't have a problem with corporation tax going up though.

However I'd rather raise the tax take from 1) income tax on higher earners, 2) ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed equally, 3) green/carbon taxes, 4) windfall tax on excessive profits, 5) wealth tax and 6) closing tax avoidance loopholes (particularly involving tax havens).

Genuine q as you've just slid wealth tax in there ......how do you see that as being implemented, assets, thresholds etc, one off or repeated? and a secondary- how do you define 'excessive profits'?

I don't have one plan for wealth taxes, I just think the huge wealth inequality in the country needs to be tackled and would help tax revenues.

One of the big issues is disclosure - how do we actually determine the wealth held by individuals, particularly if held offshore, even more so if in tax havens?

But assuming we can get some measure of the assets held by individuals I'd say a take of something of the order of 0.5 - 1% per annum. For simplicity there would be a lower threshold, maybe £50-100k net assets below which there is nothing to pay.

Another related idea would be to make a basic income taper off because of an individual's wealth level rather than income level.

Windfall taxes are one-off things so don't need a careful definition of 'excessive profits'. I take the term to mean profits above those which have normally been possible and/or have arisen through luck rather than skill or effort. It's generally clear when excessive profits are being made - as it is with fossil fuel extractors at the moment (there is also the additional justification that the profit-takers are actively impoverishing the nation).

So one of your plans is an annual wealth tax on any assets over £100k say including houses, pensions, savings, share holdings? Be interested in what you think is 'fair game' for a wealth tax.

Frankly, I do think you have to have a definition of what is excessive, otherwise it becomes a bit random and subjective- we do want to encourage investment and and by these companies I assume? And how do you then offset that against when (say) BP lose $7bn in one quarter (Q1 of Covid)?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Genuine q as you've just slid wealth tax in there ......how do you see that as being implemented, assets, thresholds etc, one off or repeated? and a secondary- how do you define 'excessive profits'?

I don't have one plan for wealth taxes, I just think the huge wealth inequality in the country needs to be tackled and would help tax revenues.

One of the big issues is disclosure - how do we actually determine the wealth held by individuals, particularly if held offshore, even more so if in tax havens?

But assuming we can get some measure of the assets held by individuals I'd say a take of something of the order of 0.5 - 1% per annum. For simplicity there would be a lower threshold, maybe £50-100k net assets below which there is nothing to pay.

Another related idea would be to make a basic income taper off because of an individual's wealth level rather than income level.

Windfall taxes are one-off things so don't need a careful definition of 'excessive profits'. I take the term to mean profits above those which have normally been possible and/or have arisen through luck rather than skill or effort. It's generally clear when excessive profits are being made - as it is with fossil fuel extractors at the moment (there is also the additional justification that the profit-takers are actively impoverishing the nation).

So one of your plans is an annual wealth tax on any assets over £100k say including houses, pensions, savings, share holdings? Be interested in what you think is 'fair game' for a wealth tax.

Frankly, I do think you have to have a definition of what is excessive, otherwise it becomes a bit random and subjective- we do want to encourage investment and and by these companies I assume? And how do you then offset that against when (say) BP lose $7bn in one quarter (Q1 of Covid)?

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

[Banquo]

I don't have one plan for wealth taxes, I just think the huge wealth inequality in the country needs to be tackled and would help tax revenues.

One of the big issues is disclosure - how do we actually determine the wealth held by individuals, particularly if held offshore, even more so if in tax havens?

But assuming we can get some measure of the assets held by individuals I'd say a take of something of the order of 0.5 - 1% per annum. For simplicity there would be a lower threshold, maybe £50-100k net assets below which there is nothing to pay.

Another related idea would be to make a basic income taper off because of an individual's wealth level rather than income level.

Windfall taxes are one-off things so don't need a careful definition of 'excessive profits'. I take the term to mean profits above those which have normally been possible and/or have arisen through luck rather than skill or effort. It's generally clear when excessive profits are being made - as it is with fossil fuel extractors at the moment (there is also the additional justification that the profit-takers are actively impoverishing the nation).

So one of your plans is an annual wealth tax on any assets over £100k say including houses, pensions, savings, share holdings? Be interested in what you think is 'fair game' for a wealth tax.

Frankly, I do think you have to have a definition of what is excessive, otherwise it becomes a bit random and subjective- we do want to encourage investment and and by these companies I assume? And how do you then offset that against when (say) BP lose $7bn in one quarter (Q1 of Covid)?

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

[Son of Mathonwy]

So one of your plans is an annual wealth tax on any assets over £100k say including houses, pensions, savings, share holdings? Be interested in what you think is 'fair game' for a wealth tax.

Frankly, I do think you have to have a definition of what is excessive, otherwise it becomes a bit random and subjective- we do want to encourage investment and and by these companies I assume? And how do you then offset that against when (say) BP lose $7bn in one quarter (Q1 of Covid)?

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

I'd tax an individual's net assets, so (any kind of) asset, less liabilities.

The clue I would give businesses is 'don't take the piss'. It would serve BP well.

[Banquo]

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

I'd tax an individual's net assets, so (any kind of) asset, less liabilities.

The clue I would give businesses is 'don't take the piss'. It would serve BP well.

so house, savngs, pension fund, shareholdings, value of defined benefit pension funds, cars, ...everything one owns in effect?

BP comment made me laugh . Mind no one cares when they make a chunky loss.

[Son of Mathonwy]

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

I'd tax an individual's net assets, so (any kind of) asset, less liabilities.

The clue I would give businesses is 'don't take the piss'. It would serve BP well.

so house, savngs, pension fund, shareholdings, value of defined benefit pension funds, cars, ...everything one owns in effect?

BP comment made me laugh . Mind no one cares when they make a chunky loss.

Yeah, if we are going to include pensions we need to include it whether it's defined benefits or defined contribution. But yeah, pensions should be included (otherwise people would use them as a loophole to avoid the tax). It's a good point though, perhaps it means that the lower threshold should be higher than £100k . . . who knows, we would need a lot of actual figures to come to a decision on it.

It's a good working definition - excessive profits occur when one is clearly taking the piss. I think the public could get behind this.

[padprop]

Glad to see no mention of cryptocurrency

[Son of Mathonwy]

Glad to see no mention of cryptocurrency

Nah man, attach an NFT to everything and the value of the UK's assets will treble overnight. Apparently.

[Puja]

Glad to see no mention of cryptocurrency

That's cause we're talking about solving existing problems, rather than inventing new ones so we can solve those.

Puja

[Stom]

So one of your plans is an annual wealth tax on any assets over £100k say including houses, pensions, savings, share holdings? Be interested in what you think is 'fair game' for a wealth tax.

Frankly, I do think you have to have a definition of what is excessive, otherwise it becomes a bit random and subjective- we do want to encourage investment and and by these companies I assume? And how do you then offset that against when (say) BP lose $7bn in one quarter (Q1 of Covid)?

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

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.

[Banquo]

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

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.

I'm with you on individual wealth taxes tbh, but maybe from a position of not understanding what say SOM means by the phrase. Now i sort of do have more of a clue

[Son of Mathonwy]

Not sure what your question about 'fair game' means.

I've given you my idea of what 'excessive profits' means. I disagree about the need for a precise, quantitative definition because I wouldn't want this to become a permanent part of tax law. It IS subjective (although you can say that of anything decided in a budget) which is why it's only acceptable in exceptional circumstances (eg what we see now with fossil fuel profits) but it's not random.

In an ideal world, with perfect competition (including no monopoly or oligopoly situations), no corruption, with proper taxing of externalities (eg the cost of greenhouse gas emissions) etc, excessive profits would be limited. We should aim at this kind of economic/political framework and so (as a by-product) windfall taxes should not be needed.

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

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.

[Banquo]

what wealth/assets are you proposing to tax? ie fair game

We will have to disagree on defining excessive, and exceptional- businesses need at least a clue. Its not an ideal world and unlikely to be so

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/#/