In reply to David Cannon:
> The problem as I see it Ash is that your argument is very black or white a one-dimensional analysis of a multivariate problem.
Have we met? I never use my real name on here and very rarely does anyone else so curious why you chose a semi-doxxing when leaving "In reply to" in your post would have made it clearer what argument you are replying to. Apologies if we have met IRL
> Recent research from LSE states the top one percent contribute 30% of the UK's tax revenues. A fair proportion of that one percent will also have established and built successful businesses that in turn employ thousands of people who also contribute to society through taxation. So lets say we make a money grab for all that billionaire cash
1. You seem to be using the top 1% and billionaire interchangably when billionaires make up 0.0000026% of the UK population not 1%.
2. The1% in the study (https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/how-much-ta...) is based on income not wealth
3. The study you refer to states that the 1% do not all pay the same rates of tax on their income, it is quite likely that that the billionaire contribution is not as much as you assume.
4. The 30% figure is 30% of tax paid by individuals on income (salary, investment income), it does not include corp tax, VAT, cpatial gains, import tariffs or myriad of other taxes that make up total UK tax take.
> and redistribute it on a means tested basis to the people. Would that make a difference? maybe for a few and for a very brief time but then what?
If you give a poor person money they will spend it on goods and services the multiplier effect will be benficial to the economy, creating jobs etc. If you give a billionaire money they will 'invest' it inflating asset prices which is not really good for the economy, it does not create wealth or increase GDP
> The countries tax revenue will be down by nearly a third and without the capitalist incentive to build successful businesses such businesses would cease to exist further reducing the tax revenues.
1. See above as to why the "nealy a third" is an embarssing figure to put into a serious debate, I mean, even if it were true, you're saying revenue from this cohort would drop from what it is now to zero!!!
2. Business investment for existing businesses is driven by things other than tax on indivduals, e.g. buisness confidence, buoyant economy, corp tax
3. People starting businesses will not expect to be immediately catapulted into the top 1% of income earners never mind expect to billionaires so I doubt thye will pay any heed to how much billionaires get taxed
> The outcome would be a nose dive in GDP widespread unemployment and poverty with a state that has no means to support even the most vulnerable.
Strangely the study you bastardised in your post comes to a different conclusion:
"We published the final Wealth Tax Commission report in December 2020, with the recommendation that, if the government chooses to raise taxes as part of its response to the COVID-19 crisis, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending."
EDIT: what RobAJones said!
Post edited at 12:51