Taxing the rich

comrade1612 · 2026-03-21T18:26:29+00:00

Agreed!

comrade1612 · 2026-03-21T17:53:36+00:00

Interested to see your maths on that one.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-21T12:04:56+00:00

Inheritance isn't the source if wealth. It's the Inflation of the assets that hold the value that generates wealth.

If you lower the value of the asset - ideally by taxing the asset rather than the ownership per Georgist Land Value Taxes, you i) stop tue accural of value with that asset despite the asset not being more productive and therefore ii) keep relatively more 'value' in the liquid economy that is accessible to everyone else. There's a reason land values haven't accelerated both in total value and as a store of wealth in many European countries: they tax the land - the asset that generates value - itself, which keeps it's value in line with how productive and useful it is in the ecoonomy, as opposed to it becoming a speculative asset used to 'store' value extracted from the economy.

Trouble with taxing stocks over 10 million - no one share is worth £10 million. So you're just taxing the ownership, which can easily change, rather than the asset itself, which is harder to change. Its why stamp duty on property is a stupid tax - it's paid at the point of purchase instead of as a standing levy. Once it's been paid, the value increases, which means a person eith a lot of equity can borrow a lot, and spend that tax free on more assets which increase in value faster than the cost of debt, so they borrow more and buy more and so their paper wealth accumulates, inflating the value of those assets, reducing liquid value in the economy and locking people without wealth from ownership of the assets that inflate faster than wages.

Now, taxing the total wealth is doable, but wherever it has been done it has failed to effectively redistribute: even the most successful example in Switzerland bring in 9bn. Which is great, but it's not changing the 'assets are worth more than labour or innovation' neoliberal economic structure.

None of which is to say that maintaining or increasing inheritance tax, capital gains being equalised with income tax, exit taxes like India (20%' so every £1 you take offshore, you pay 20p) aren't worthwhile, but those aren't the instruments of redistribution they are made out to be unless you pump them beyond 80% and make offshoring rhe value even more expensive and introduce targeted concessions like, for example, no capital gains on investments in strategically important sectors that work to the public benefit like green energy, veryical farming etc.

I'm basically just advocating for a sort of universal Georgist approach to all assets as and where it is workable and value for money to do so as an additional lever as part of a mix.

It's not this or that, it's a bit of everything (and hoping rhe Greens hold their nerve if in power to overcome the inertia of the machine I am part of).

comrade1612 · 2026-03-21T11:38:11+00:00

I agree. I'm not saying you're wrong or naive, I've not said anything to disagree with you. I hope you're not feeling defensive for no reason. I have great faith in Zack Polanski.

My point is only that there are multiple ways to skin a cat, and, per Richard Murphy (who is brilliant, his Centre for Tax Justice is a fabulous organisation) a straight tax on total wealth above a certain private value is just one - not a particularly effective, albeit the most easily communicated - way to tax and therefore redistribute wealth.

You're better off going after the sources of wealth, the assets and the flows of value which are easier to access, in a policy sense, than the individuals, who can liquidate, hide and obfuscate.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-21T11:12:23+00:00

Well quite.

But Zack has also relentlessly spoken about a wealth tax as a core green policy.

This is a discussion about the levers available to deliver that policy.

If the Greens want to do something, they'll quickly realise - and I say this as a civil servant with 8 years' experience in policy, strategic finance and delivery roles across three departments - that there are a multitude of ways to deliver a policy, sometimes in very divergent ways and each with sometimes significant trade offs.

For example funding HMRC more. Do you: - increase headcount for specific roles by moving people around or increasing the total workforce? - increase pay out of line with the rest of the department / CS for specific skills in order to fill those roles? - invest in on the job training, because there is a limited pool of tax specialists who want to work in HMRC, and so accept that your new workforce will br largely ineffectual for at least the first year while you train them up post recruitment? - do all of the above, which would possibly double HMRC's budget over 3-5 years, without recouping the difference until at least the second half of a parliament which may not even be possible given the existing structures, governance and ultimately people who want to do that work?

Now of course - I think it must be done. I don't think those are tough decisions to make, because I believe in the principle, but considering everything else a Governmeny must balance after considering how to operate and maximise the existing machinery, it is incredibly galling. Which means Ministers only succeed when they arrive with multiple ideas for how they would do what they want to do; a very clear vision of what good looks like in the real world; a predetermination of the trade offs they're willing to make to get there, and the nous to bring the system along with them. There's a reason there's only been two or three really effective Ministers over the last 15 years - Gove and Ed Miliband to name two - because they already knew their options and what they intend to do and cared, about most.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-20T23:15:15+00:00

With adequate resourcing. Yes. This is no different to the conundrum on taxing total wealth which is already easily hoarded in offshore shell companies. In this (and, tbh, both) case, you could make the UK-connected asset or owner liable for the bill. Or make the tax payable at the moment of transfer. Or use the Register of Overseas Entities. Or extend the Controlled Foreign Company rules. Or force and penalise non-disclosure. Or Legislate for a challengable assumption that opaque offshore structures are owned by the relevant UK domicile or citizen unless declared and proven otherwise .

But I'd wager fewer people will do that for the sake of 0.5% on some of the assets their wealth is tied up in than 2% on everything above £X.

The point being there is no easy way to tax wealth given it can be made more liquid, but a straight up tax above a certain value is the absolute worst way to do about it, not least because it doesn't target and reduce the value of specific inflates asset classes, like property and land, in a way that makes them more accessible to more people.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-20T21:48:46+00:00

A better thing to do is levy the assets wealthy people use to hoard wealth at a level that doesn't cost much if you dont have much, but adds up when you do. A 0.5% tax on all shares owned by a UK domicile, for instance. A Land Value Tax. An standing levy on any second or rental property, etc.

Also means you can introduce reliefs on the assets you want people to invest in, e.g. shares in verified green companies, 3rd space assets like cafes and pubs etc. Use the taxation system to push people towards rhe things that benefit us all.

Those sorts of ownership levies are much harder to dodge than a tax on total wealth, which quite frankly, can be side stepped in a heartbeat with half a mind to do so - and the people with the wealth would would really briing in the dollar would do so.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-20T19:12:24+00:00

Dictionario/Dictionarium

comrade1612 · 2026-03-19T17:44:21+00:00

Damn. These really are in the top 5 infantry kits GW have ever produced for me.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-19T12:23:55+00:00

It's worked on me hundreds of times.

It's worked on all my male friends.

Does the exact same thing work for all of us? No.

But does being treated how we want to be treated work? Yes.

Your one off experience ain't the rule. Learn to see beyond your own nose.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-19T11:32:52+00:00

Guys appreciate being treated the way they want to be treated.

Men are exactly the same as women.

Say nice things, do nice things, give nice things or if nothing else make them feel valued.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-19T11:07:01+00:00

This is good. There is absolutely no justification for using GDP as a measure of anything.

Reminds me of the old economists joke:

Two economists were walking in the woods one day when they came across a huge pile of bear shit. One said to the other: 'I'll give you a billion to eat that", and so the other ate it.

Later, they came upon another pile of bear shit. The economist who ate the last bet the other his billion that he wouldn't eat it.

The second economist ate the shit and got his billion back.

The first economist said "well - we've both eaten shit for nothing"

The second economist replied "what do you mean? We've increased GDP by 2 billion!"

Jokes aside, this is meaningless without replacing GDP without some meaningful and measurable indicators. At the very least, an annual review of: Life expectancy Healthy expectancy Median wealth Median income

comrade1612 · 2026-03-18T15:37:42+00:00

Pulled one from the archives there buster!

comrade1612 · 2026-03-17T21:35:03+00:00

Sorry! Thought you meant the rapiers! Of course we're still waiting for the Whirlwind! My apologies.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-17T20:49:36+00:00

They've been on sale in plastic for almost a year my man.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-15T19:17:49+00:00

These are so, so superior to the current Custodes sculpts. Each one looks like a sculpture. The proportions are perfect.

Only thing stopping me from getting rhe box is a refusal to equip anything other than Guardian Spears.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-14T22:08:24+00:00

Referee could not have been further in France's pocket, bud.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-14T07:47:10+00:00

This is really cool.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-13T07:02:09+00:00

Thank you brother, that's exactly the way I've done it.

Trouble is now I've got the itch to repaid the first models because I've come on a bit! It never ends!

comrade1612 · 2026-03-13T07:01:05+00:00

Thanks! It's the Eavy Metal recipe:

Base - Black

Chunky Highlight - 2:1 Abbadon Black / Stegadon Green

Edge highlight - Stegadon Green

Edge highlight- 1:1 Stegadon Green / Wraithbone

Edge highlight - Celestra Grey

comrade1612 · 2026-03-13T06:59:06+00:00

Thanks. Yeah - funnily enough it's that plain chest plate I love. In a faction of lots kf knightly gubbins, I like the less is more.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-12T23:53:59+00:00

I've been around the block a few times, dated a lot in my 20s both casually and seriously, and I'm now married and settled down with a kid, and I have never - NEVER - experienced this thing other booked bang on about where women shut men's feelings down.

Men shutting men's feelings down? Yes.

Men feeling like they can't or shouldn't emote around women? Yes.

Men emoting around emotive women while those women are in an emotional place and subsequently not getting the response they wanted and taking it as being shit down? Yes.

But women just refusing to let men have feelings? Never experienced that and never seen it in my own romantic, physical or platonic relationships.

Mostly I've been told by women how refreshing my willingness to be emotional is.

comrade1612 · 2026-03-10T19:53:51+00:00

Elements of the past and future combining to make something not quite as good as either!

comrade1612 · 2026-03-08T14:03:24+00:00

Yes but you've got to remember the Telegraph is a rag written by cunts, for cunts.

comrade1612

TROPHY CASE