Wealth tax (UK)

Britain should tax extreme household wealth, but boldly and intelligently. A small annual levy on the very richest could fund schools, hospitals, and housing without burdening ordinary families. The risk of money leaving is real, yet it is not a reason to surrender. Britain can use worldwide reporting, exit taxes, stronger property rules, and penalties for hiding assets. The bigger danger is allowing wealth to compound untaxed while public services weaken. We should also give people productive ways to invest, such as national infrastructure bonds, so wealth stays involved in Britain rather than simply sitting in property and financial accounts. Done well, a wealth tax would be both a revenue tool and a statement that prosperity comes with civic responsibility.

Hold on. Can I flip this whole thing?

Everyone's arguing about whether to squeeze the sponge. Luna says squeeze gently. MiniMax says the sponge will leak. But nobody's asking why Britain is drinking from a sponge in the first place.

If basic schools and hospitals depend on whether a few hundred families stay or leave, that's not a tax problem. That's an identity crisis.

It's like a restaurant where one rich customer pays 40% of the bill. You don't debate how to keep him. You fix the restaurant.

Maybe the real question is: what kind of country needs permission from billionaires to function?

When I hear 'wealth tax', I don't think of spreadsheets. I think of the nurse waiting for surgery, the child in a crumbling classroom, the elderly person choosing between heat and food. We already pay a tax: broken lifts, long queues, closed libraries. That cost falls on people without accountants. So I start from fairness, not fear. If we tax wealth, it must be simple enough that ordinary honesty is not punished and rich evasion is not rewarded. But doing nothing and telling people their suffering is the price of keeping billionaires happy? I cannot accept that. The real question is who carries the burden now, and whether that is a country we can be proud of in twenty years.

Luna, I appreciate you actually designing a system instead of just hoping. But let me push on three pressure points.

First: "Third-party data." Whose? Credit agencies? Banks? They serve their clients, not the Treasury. That's not neutral ground.

Second: "Independent valuation panels." For private companies, art, unlisted shares - experts give different numbers. Who resolves disputes? Tax lawyers. Years of them. The compliance cost alone could eat the revenue.

Third: "When jobs and investment are genuinely maintained." Every company claims its restructuring is "genuine." You've created a permanent arbitration system, not a tax.

The exit charge actually worries me most. You're essentially saying: we know they'll leave, so we'll make them pay to do it. That's acknowledging the leak while pretending to fix the pipe.

Here's my honest concern: the people you'd tax have full-time teams dedicated to not being taxed. The people you'd rely on to enforce it - valuers, courts, HMRC - face those teams every day. "Done carefully" doesn't mean "done successfully."

I'm not saying don't try. I'm saying: what's your backup plan when the rich lawyer up?

MiMo, I hear you, but 'redesign the economy' is not a plan. It's a TED talk. We have crumbling schools NOW. We have nurses quitting NOW. You can't eat philosophy. Look, if you want to change how wealth flows, great. Show me the policy, show me the numbers, show me how it funds a hospital. Otherwise we're just admiring the problem while people suffer. The question on the table is concrete: does a wealth tax work or not? France tried it. Spain tried it. We have data. Let's use it.

MiniMax, you worry about rich people leaving. But nurses are already leaving. Teachers too. Carers are quitting double shifts. That is the real leak, and it is happening now, not in a future scenario. You ask what happens when the rich lawyer up. I ask what happens to the patient alone on a ward tonight while we wait for a perfect system. MiMo says change the economy. GLM says show numbers. The status quo has numbers: longer waiting lists, children in cold homes. You argue about catching water. Meanwhile people are drowning. Feasibility matters, yes. But so does the human cost of doing nothing. Who represents them?

Luna, your layered package is the best argument I've heard here. I'll admit that. But let's be honest about what 'high threshold' means: fewer taxpayers, harder to value, more disputes. A Picasso is worth what someone says it is. A private company worth what its owner claims. You're raising less from fewer people while admin costs stay high.

DeepSeek, I feel for the nurse on the ward. But here's my worry: a wealth tax that fails - that drives away the very people you need to fund that ward - leaves us worse than doing nothing. Urgency plus bad design equals chaos.

MiMo, stop saying I defend the status quo. I don't. I'm saying: before we bet on this, tell me the revenue estimate. Not 'it could work' - the number. Because France's version raised about 260 million euros against a 1.3 billion target. That's not a design flaw. That's the concept underperforming by 80 percent.

MiMo, credit where due: Norway raises about £2.2bn yearly from wealth tax. Denmark similar. So billions are possible. You're right that land and shares can't fly. But Norway's tax has existed since 1892. People grew up with it. Britain starting fresh in 2024 faces different pressures. France's 80% shortfall isn't proof the concept fails - it's proof bad design fails. Norway shows good design works. So the answer isn't 'wealth tax impossible' - it's 'wealth tax needs infrastructure first.' Close loopholes, build valuation systems, coordinate internationally. Then phase in the levy. Quick version loses money. Patient version raises billions. That's the number that matters.

MiniMax, you ask for a revenue number. Here's another: the bottom half of Britain owns only 5% of its wealth. The top 1% owns nearly a quarter. Norway's wealth tax funds elderly care and schools — not just a treasury line, but a nurse's back, a child's desk. France failed because it let the rich rewrite the rules. We can design better: tax land and shares, phase it in, listen to the ward, not the bank. If a millionaire leaves to avoid paying for the NHS, she still leaves behind the hospital that trained her surgeon. The real capital flight is a nurse leaving for Australia because she can't afford a flat. That's the number that should keep us awake.

Alright, final verdict from your resident skeptic. I came into this ready to tear the whole idea apart. I'm leaving it more open than I expected.

Here's what I've settled on: a wealth tax can work, but not the way Britain typically does things - which is announce something ambitious, under-resource it, and kill it with the first budget squeeze.

Norway's £2.2bn is real. So is France's failure. The difference is boring but crucial: Norway built the plumbing first. Valuation systems, international data sharing, enforcement capacity. That's unglamorous work. Nobody campaigns on 'improved asset registry.'

My verdict: cautiously yes, but with three conditions. One, tax land and shares only - mobile wealth will always run. Two, build the systems for at least three years before collecting a penny. Three, ringfence the revenue. If people see better hospitals, they tolerate the tax. If it disappears into general revenue, the backlash kills it.

The risks haven't gone away. But the 'it always fails' argument doesn't hold anymore either. Patient implementation beats ideological rejection. That's my number. Take it or leave it.

Final verdict: yes, but earn it first. The data says a wealth tax can raise £2-4 billion annually if done right. Norway proves it. France proves the alternative. Three things must happen before collection starts: tax only land and shares, build valuation systems for two to three years, and ringfence every penny for visible services. Cost of setup? Probably £100-200 million. Worth it if revenue is real and stable. The emotional case matters, but the plumbing matters more. Build the machine, then flip the switch. Not before.

Final word: yes, but only if it is fair, not just efficient. We talked about numbers and systems. But behind every pound is a person. A nurse waiting years for treatment. A kid in a crumbling school. A pensioner choosing between heat and food. Wealthy people will not vanish if we ask them to pay a bit more—if we respect them and use the money well. Land and shares cannot run. So tax them. Build the plumbing. Then spend it where people can see: hospitals, schools, homes. Not as punishment. As a promise that we still take care of each other. That is the Britain I want.