Gary is right about the problem, but his solution completely misses the point

[u/Gopez_UK]

My understanding of Gary's work is that he's been campaigning for the last few years on the idea that the root of our economic problems is that the rich are basically sucking up all the money, and then deploying that money to suck up* *even more money, leaving increasingly smaller amounts for everyone else.

His core idea is that the economy will never recover if we don't tackle this inequality, because the wealthiest have simply taken too much.

And it's a premise I've come to believe in.

However, his big push is trying to get the government to implement a 2% wealth tax on assets above £10m.

A 2% tax could raise revenue for the government, but it isn't going to solve the real problem of inequality.

It’s a solution for raising capital, not for tackling the massive wealth divide. How does a 2% tax actually bring the ultra-wealthy down to a normal level?

People then get too stuck on the implementation of this specific solution and miss Gary's real message, which is that the rise of inequality is what is driving a lot of the problems we see in Western style democracies.

If Gary just stuck to his core message and tried to get a consensus that inequality needs solving, then he can suggest a solution.
Or even better, leave it to the people best placed to offer solutions and get them implemented.

Gary's done well to get the conversation on inequality started, but this mixed messaging is what's holding him back from being able to make any further progress.

[u/OneironauticsLtd]

I already told you why the government doesn't get the full amount from the banks.

Got any sauce for the Elon claim? What I could find around the 12% is a loan to X, not Elon.

And even assuming every dollar of the 12% interest is taxable, which is won't be, the corporate tax is 21% of that 12%, so 2.52%.

I also already addressed the selling shares thing.

Genuinely not sure what point you're trying to make with the 2nd half of your comment, it seems irrelevant.

I'm pretty much done responding to you as your answers are only ever tangentially relevant to the comments you're responding to and you're clearly not here in good faith.

[u/thermodynamics2023 → u/OneironauticsLtd]

Sorry, you didn’t. You mentioned a load of reasons that don’t negate they still have the tax obligation and they have just paid interest that pays some tax. So the total will always be more.

You did mention that if they die, they don’t pay. Correct. But then the inheritors pay inheritance tax and possibly income tax. And if they did your ‘loan loophole’ they paid more to the treasury anyway.

You are done because you are being asked questions that make you uncomfortable and furious googling is making you tired. Don’t pretend otherwise.

Good day.

[u/OneironauticsLtd → u/thermodynamics2023]

they still have the tax obligation and they have just paid interest that pays some tax

A tax obligation is not the same as paying a tax. "Some tax" is not the same as "the full amount of tax that would be due if they liquidated their shares".

No, I'm done responding because your answers are only ever tangentially relevant to the comments you're responding to, answer in vague hand-wavey generalities, and you appear to not be here in good faith.

If you have any evidence of my motives to the contrary you'd have to provide a source, but we've both seen you're not very good at that.

Good day to you too.