[mathverse]

The problem with the approach of "tax this and tax that" is that it often ends up hurting the lower and middle classes the most.

I am very skeptical about any new taxes aiming for wealth distribution that are not very explicit about who should pay that tax.

[Latty]

Yes? That's why I was very specific about who should pay it. This is such a common response to any taxation. It is true that any solution done wrong can make things worse, but that's not a reason not to try and solve the problem, it's a reason to do it right.

The alternative, not taxing anyone much, has been tried: it gets us here, with public services collapsing and the country becoming less and less desirable to exist in. We are so far on the left of the Laffer curve it is laughable, even if we ignore the insanity of assuming that the value of having a society that functions isn't relevant.

[mathverse]

I have not seen this done correctly anywhere. I have only experienced taxes getting higher and higher with nothing much to show for it. Meanwhile the really rich folk are also getting richer.

[Latty]

The NHS is great. I've lived my life with access to it and in a society provided for by it, and wouldn't trade it for anything. Taxes have paid for it, and should continue to do so.

What alternative are you offering? Not taxing anyone much leaves us with a society that simply doesn't function, we see that right now. FUD about "well, they could tax the wrong people" is pretty irrelevant when we are already in a situation where most people are facing poverty and ruin. If this is all we can expect, then might as well roll the dice on doing it right.

Of course, the idea there is no way to actually tax the rich is absurd, we can do it, we have just had decades of government with no will to do so.

[mathverse]

> FUD about "well, they could tax the wrong people" is pretty irrelevant

This is not FUD. They always tax the wrong people. We as a society can do many, many things but we simply cant coordinate to do them. And indeed we should consider this lack of coordination (for a lack of a better term) as something we should take into account when making decisions.

I honestly dont have a solution to this problem.

[Latty]

The solution: demand taxation that works, and if that fails, general strikes until they get it right, and if that fails, historically the answer is guillotines in the streets—I would never condone violence, but the reality is inevitable if a population suffers enough, violence begets violence, we need to impress upon those that seek to profit at all cost that there is a limit to all things, and they must not start a war.

"We voted in the Tories again and they continued to lower taxes for their mates and screw over the poor" is hardly trying everything. Throwing your hands in the air, accepting suffering and society collapsing while they profit off it isn't an answer.

You are saying you don't think it's impossible, just that no one is willing to do it: we have to create pressure to do the right thing, and demand it, not make excuses and accept it as inevitable.

[robertlagrant]

> Of course, the idea there is no way to actually tax the rich is absurd, we can do it, we have just had decades of government with no will to do so.

Which way is that, other than the ways we already do it?

[Latty]

How extreme do you want to go?

- Tax capital gains and dividends that are classically the rates actually paid by the megarich rather than income tax.

- Tax wealth directly rather than just income.

- Tax much more heavily generally and commit to a significant basic income to ensure everyone has a solid baseline.

This is just off the top of my head, we have an entire government of people and a huge field of existing research and ideas, not to mention other countries and historic data on taxing more than the UK right now to look at.

[robertlagrant]

I don't want to go extreme at all; centralising economies has the worst track record of starvation and killing in all of history. I'm just wondering what the plan was :)

[break_the_bank]

Isn’t income over a certain number already taxed at 45%? How much higher are you proposing?

[Latty]

In theory, in practice the very rich pay an effective tax rate of around 20%, because they can turn it into capital gains and dividends with lower rates than income tax.

So we need to increase taxes there rather than income tax, and, I would personally argue, begin taxing wealth rather than just income when people have millions of pounds of assets.

Of course, I'd also argue we should have higher bands, once we fix the other problems and people are actually paying those rates. Paying say, 60% over a million pounds of income seems totally reasonable for me. You've already got a huge amount of income at that point taxed at a lower rate. You can afford to pay more, and should want to in order to get a better society to live in.

[Symbiote]

Denmark's highest income tax rate is 55.90% [1].

Britain had a 95% tax rate in the 1960s, as heard in "Taxman" by the Beatles "There's one for you, nineteen for me" [2].

[1] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/denmark/individual/taxes-on-per...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman

[AlexandrB]

The US used to have rates of 70% or higher for the highest brackets[1]. There's plenty of headroom vs. historical norms.

[1] https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-bracke...

[philipwhiuk]

This is basically an inverted 'trickle down economics' argument which has been shown time and again to be bunk.

Taxing rich folk more doesn't hurt poor people who don't pay those taxes.

[mathverse]

Who is the rich folk? Because any tax increases I have experienced so far affected me and I dont feel rich at all.

[jacknews]

That would be shareholders. ie profits accruing from other people's hard work should be taxed heavily.