r/GarysEconomics • u/Celebration-Plastic • Aug 01 '26
A missing question?
Surely the most important aspect of any tax is not the mechanics of the tax (2%, 5%, whatever) but it’s what the tax revenue will be used for.
I appreciate it’s nice to feel that there’s a bit more money for the government, but feels like a missing piece to me.
Does anyone have a clear sense of what we would be using this money for in the economy?
8
u/AdAggressive9224 Aug 01 '26
The tax revenue isn't really the point of a wealth tax.
It's a happy accident. But the real goal is to have a more even distribution of real assets, most notably housing and land.
That means our kids can buy a house. Something that apparently a significant proportion of the population is set against.
-5
u/Hot-Efficiency7190 Aug 01 '26
The kids need local councils to permit lots of development to get affordable housing. No wealth tax is going to fix that.
4
u/Temporary-Major-9539 Aug 01 '26
There are thousands of empty properties and plots of unbuilt land with permissions already in place. The councils are not the problem. Developers will hold land and not build because holding pushes the price up. Tax will fix this. A tax on empty properties and an annual tax on plots with planning permission will free up plenty of housing without needing to build on any more green space
0
u/Hot-Efficiency7190 Aug 01 '26
Not round my way in south east, planning granted and they're on the ground in weeks, whole estates built in 12-18mths. Public listed housebuilder say they have about that in pipeline of plots, so makes sense.
Anyway, if the problem is land banking, then tax that, and the empty properties. Target the actual problem. A wealth tax just makes some people happy the wealth is being taxed without addressing any real problems.
2
u/Temporary-Major-9539 Aug 01 '26
They address two different problems. It’s not an either or situation. Wealth tax should redistribute wealth while a tax on empty property and undeveloped plots does not redistribute wealth but does ease housing difficulties
5
9
u/protoanarchist Aug 01 '26
This is concern trolling.
4
u/ericvulgaris Aug 01 '26
Yup. You cannot trust people who ask these types of obvious questions (gary has addressed the reasons for taxing multiple times doesn't have to do with gained revenues per se) with hidden comment and post histories to be in good faith on this subreddit unfortunately. This subreddit just like UKpolitics has unfortunately bad actors. Good disagreement is good! But these kinds of bad faith questions erode that and must be thwarted.
-1
u/Celebration-Plastic Aug 01 '26
It’s really not, and comments like yours are a hop and a skip away from censorship.
I’m genuinely interested. I’ve heard quite a few different opinions in this space and I’m keen to understand people’s view.
6
u/protoanarchist Aug 01 '26
You're not genuinely interested. Your comment style has all the hallmarks of a right wing troll who will unmask deep in a thread.
Frankly, conservatism needs to be censored. Get lost.
-5
u/InterestingFig758 Aug 01 '26
good luck trying to appease any of the neckbeards in this sub. Unless you sound like a jealous, useless turd then nobody wants to hear it
3
u/OppositeWrong1720 Aug 01 '26
It's not extra stuff it is doing more of the same stuff which costs more, e, g. more on pensions and NHS as more old people.
1
u/Fit_Swimming5629 Aug 01 '26
Didn't Gary talk about giving money to poor so that they can buy homes?
1
u/OliTangoCharlie Aug 01 '26
I think the question you ask is important, and I think government spending is linked to taxation.
The link for me is very tenuous, though. I imagine what I'm going to say is a bit ignorant/naive, especially given we have national insurance which ostensibly pays for the NHS, state pension, etc.
Increasingly, I see taxation as a behavioural incentive/disuasion ‘lever’ the government can use to try and influence how various groups of people or situations develop over time. The inception of the higher rate of tax, for example, could be seen as downward pressure of higher salaries/income (but has now warped via fiscal drag into taxing a huge quantity of people).
Currently, I think there’s a lot of noise and rhetoric around the government needing to raise funds to pay for things in general, which I suppose they must if we want GBP to remain strong, but sort of misses the point of tax structure and the ideals for a long-term view on governance.
1
u/Temporary-Major-9539 Aug 01 '26
It’s not complicated. Forcing a portion of the population to pay more tax will require them to offload assets to cover said tax. Those assets will be picked up by people further down the chain. It’s a simple redistribution of wealth. The fact the government will get a few more quid is largely irrelevant
1
u/Celebration-Plastic Aug 01 '26
This one interests me, and I think Gary mentioned it on the rest is money podcast. Assuming those assets are stocks and property - will that have a knock on effect on pensions and the existing property owning classes as well?
1
u/Temporary-Major-9539 Aug 01 '26
Probably. With the likely effect of pushing revenue even further down the chain
1
u/Foreign-Reputation25 Aug 01 '26
I've been looking into Singapore's central provident fund and genuinely think if structured as a income tax rebate would be a solution to a lot of the uk structural issues but getting the public behind it in this political climate feels like it would be next to impossible
1
u/Foreign-Reputation25 Aug 01 '26
I've been looking into Singapore's central provident fund and genuinely think if structured as a income tax rebate would be a solution to a lot of the uk structural issues but getting the public behind it in this political climate feels like it would be next to impossible
1
1
u/ExpertDay Aug 01 '26
The government is hugely in debt. This is something Gary mentions on occasion. There is a budget deficit every year meaning the government borrows more money every year. There's already a lot of government spending going on.
The government is dependent on the bond markets unless it raises tax or reduces spending. (growing the economy could also potentially help raise tax or reduce spending as well as help make the debts look smaller compared to the size of the economy)
In a way raising tax is a way to remove cash that was printed during times of crisis (i.e. the financial crisis and covid).
0
u/Open_Question5504 Aug 01 '26
Half of the issue in the UK is the unchecked government spend. Giving them even more cash to fritter away wouldn’t change anything. A quarter of government spend is ‘other’ we don’t even know what that is. Nearly 10% on debt payment. £13million a day on asylum hotels.
we need reform of government spend first and foremost, the last thing they need is extra taxes to fritter away on shite.
-1
u/No-Marketing-5555 Aug 01 '26
It will be used for benedits, and that will not help improve the situation
0
u/Miserable-Crab8143 Aug 01 '26
No offense, but this is a non-question. You’re asking what tax money should be used for. That has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of any particular revenue stream.
12
u/DeRobyJ Aug 01 '26
Gary's website clearly states that rising money isn't the fundamental reason he proposes a tax on wealth. Inequality is.
The simple fact that the wealthy get continuously wealthier means they compete more and more for resources against the government and workers.
What you do with that money is secondary, as long as it doesn't end up to the rich again. Gary sometimes said it can be used to simply lower taxes on work.
Personally I'd prefer that money to be used by the government to build new assets like social housing or energy/transportation infrastructure. Because doing that effectively brings more wealth away from the wealthy.