Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter G Tatchell

GET UPDATES FROM Peter G Tatchell
 

How to Save the Economy: A One-off 20% Tax on the Richest 10%

Posted: 22/11/11 23:00 GMT

Britain faces the biggest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, including the potential for economic meltdown and a second Great Depression lasting a decade or more.

The government's Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has suggested that we are facing a crisis similar to wartime, with our national future at stake. In these circumstances, we need bold, imaginative and radical measures to fix the economy.

Britain has a national debt of around £950 billion and a government deficit heading towards £200 billion. The government's solution is swingeing cuts in public services and consequent massive job losses. It even claims that cuts are the only option left.

Not true. There are serious alternatives.

As well as closing tax avoidance schemes, which could raise an extra £20 billion a year, there is a strong case for a national emergency tax on the fabulously wealthy, which could raise staggering sums - enough to clear the government deficit, pay off most of the national debt, kick-start the economy and avoid the need for damaging, painful cuts in jobs and public services.

The current economic crisis is so grave that it merits a 'save the nation' one-off 20% tax on the personal wealth of richest 10% of the population, as proposed by Professor Greg Philo and the Glasgow Media Group.

The wealthiest 10% of the population have combined personal assets totalling £4 million, million pounds. This is a million pounds multiplied 4 million times. These are the people who have five plus million pound homes (often several of them), plus private yachts and jets and vast art collections. They can easily afford a once-only 20% tax on their immense wealth. Selling off one of their six houses, a Lamborghini or a Jackson Pollack painting won't cause them to suffer.

Such a tax would raise a massive £800 billion. This is enough to pay off the entire government deficit more than four times over - or it could be used to clear most of the national debt.

A reduction in the national debt would dramatically cut the government's huge debt interest payments, which amount to around £48 billion a year. This is a vast sum of money that would be better spent on schools, hospitals, pensions and job-creation.

Alternatively, and even more useful in terms of reviving the economy, the £800 billion (or part of it) could be used to fund the proposed Green New Deal.

Modelled on Roosevelt's 1930s New Deal, which got America back to work and ended the Great Depression, this Green New Deal would create lots of green jobs in energy conservation, renewable energy, public transport and affordable homes; simultaneously helping remedy climate destruction and kick-starting economic recovery.

The Green New Deal could ensure that Britain leads the world in sustainable economics and green technologies, opening up new export markets and boosting our economic revival for many decades to come.

According to a YouGov poll in June 2010, 74% of the public favour a one-off tax on the richest people in Britain. Only 10% oppose it.

With great wealth comes great responsibility. The mega rich have the capacity and responsibility to help the country out of the mess we are in. They benefited disproportionately from the boom times. Now that times are tough they should contribute disproportionately to get the British economy back in shape.

Put bluntly: The super rich have a patriotic duty to help save the economy by paying more tax. If they love Britain, they will be willing to do this, in order to help us win through the current economic crisis.

Contributing more tax is in the interest of those with huge wealth. If the economy fails, their losses will be even more than the greater tax they are being asked to pay. By giving more to the exchequer now they would be doing the morally right thing for the country and its citizens. They would also, by helping save the economy, also save most of their own riches. It's enlightened self-interest.

For more information about Peter Tatchell's human rights and social justice campaigns: www.petertatchell.net

 
Britain faces the biggest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, including the potential for economic meltdown and a second Great Depression lasting a decade or more. The government's Business Secret...
Britain faces the biggest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, including the potential for economic meltdown and a second Great Depression lasting a decade or more. The government's Business Secret...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:14 PM on 11/24/2011
I have to say, I read your article, Peter, with the expectation of my blood pressure rising and your views being in absolute contrast to my rather Conservative (big C) views. However, there is probably merit in what is proposed by a one off tax against the "super rich". My thoughts are that most of these people would probably base themselves 'offshore' and would not be captured by UK taxation, my second thought is that what salary band is bounded by the richest 10%. A quick google doesn't really reveal the answer, but my suspicion is that it may include people who earn a good salary, but who are not necessarily asset and cash rich. Doctors, and other professionals should not be the target audience here.
photo
PeterTatchell
Human rights campaigner
04:07 PM on 11/24/2011
A variation on my proposal is that payment of the 20% tax could be deferred until after a person dies or that it would be payable now as an interest-free loan to the government, and repayable after, say, 10 years – once the economy is back in shape and other tax revenues are healthier. So the people taxed under this scheme would lose only the interest and any potential appreciation in value of the assets they sold to pay the tax - but they would not lose their capital.

I should have made it clear that the 20% tax rate would graduated - an the average. People at the less rich end of the richest 10% would probably pay a wealth tax of only 5%, while those at the very richest end might pay 30%. Everyone would be assessed individually. No one would be made to pay in ways that caused them hardship. The tax would be assessed and collected in ways similar to other taxes, such as income tax and capital gains tax.
01:55 AM on 11/24/2011
Plain common sense. Well said.

But since when did governments take any notice of public opinion when it is not in the politicians' personal interests?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Adnan Al-Daini
06:45 PM on 11/23/2011
“One-off 20% tax on the personal wealth of richest 10% of the population”
Considering the obsession and the determination of this government to reverse the 50% tax on earnings above £150, 000, the chances of enacting such a proposal are zero. Would the Labour party do it if in power? Not on your Nelly! Would the rich 10% do it voluntarily? Not a chance. Good sensible suggestion, nevertheless.
photo
PeterTatchell
Human rights campaigner
10:09 PM on 11/23/2011
The Tobin Tax was almost unknown three years ago. Now even the French and German governments, the Pope and Bill Gates are backing it. If we popularise the 20% wealth tax and campaign for it, perhaps we can build public support and pressure a reluctant UK government to rethink. The people united can win. We defeated Thatcher's poll tax. Remember?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Adnan Al-Daini
10:46 AM on 11/24/2011
Peter, you are absolutely right; we must remain positive. Negativity is neither helpful nor useful.
photo
PeterTatchell
Human rights campaigner
06:13 PM on 11/23/2011
Kevin is wrong. The richest 10% of the adult population is closer to 2.5 million. However, he is right that I should have explained in a little more detail to avoid misunderstanding. The 20% tax rate would be an average. People at the less rich end of the richest 10% would probably pay a wealth tax of 5%, while those at the very richest end night pay 30%. Everyone would be assessed individually. No one would be made to pay in ways that cause them hardship.
In answer to Kevin's valid point: who would buy the luxury goods sold to pay the tax? There are plenty of Chinese, Russian, US, Japanese and Indian oligarchs who might like to buy a nice house in the Riviera or Tuscany, or a start of the art private yacht or jet.
10:37 PM on 11/23/2011
'Probably pay a wealth tax of 5%...night (sic) pay 30%'. I think this sums up exactly how much thought has gone into this. Who is identifying these people? What is to be classified as taxable wealth - capital ownership, cash in the bank or something in between? Who will audit this? Do you honestly think personal wealth will be forfeit or rather investments that will impact a huge number of other people? How long will it take for 2.5million people to be 'individually assessed'? Who will pay the legal costs of 2.5million ensuing legal actions in opposition to a civil servant's estimation and application of the yet undefined 'wealth' quantity? How much will it cost to pay for an absolute army of assessors, auditors, lawyers et al? I respect a large amount of Peter's work, and disagree with some opinions too, but this is such a lazy, anaemic proposal that I just feel it's a bit of a shame it ever got aired.
photo
PeterTatchell
Human rights campaigner
11:01 PM on 11/23/2011
This tax would be assessed and collected in the same way as other taxes - income, capital gains etc. via HMRC. I wrote an article not a book. In a 600 word article it is impossible to provide every detail. An idea is not invalidated because not every t is crossed and not every i dotted. I am sure that greater minds than mine can fine tune the details. When the NHS was first proposed, its promoters did not present a flawless detailed model of how the whole institution would work. At this stage we are talking about the principle of a 20% wealth tax on the mega rich. The practicals can be worked out later in the course of subsequent debate.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kevin Mcilroy
12:11 AM on 11/24/2011
Good point Peter about the population I should have been more on the ball there, but I think that trying to take a third of someone's possessions is a tad on the excessive side.... how about an alternative where people made interest free loans to the government. If as you say the 20% of the top10%'s value would almost pay off the national debt it would by definition free up the interest of £48 billion which could then be deployed usefully without resorting to Robin Hood tactics (tongue in cheek).... OK the idea suffers from some of the problems I mentioned before notably the ability to free up the cash but I do believe that suggesting something different to the hidebound ideas that our political classes are stuck with might encourage them to be inventive in ways other than simply raising new taxes
photo
PeterTatchell
Human rights campaigner
12:25 AM on 11/24/2011
Yep, Kevin, there is some merit in your alternative of the mega rich being required to make mandatory interest-free loans to the government amounting to 20% of their wealth. This way they get their money back. Worth thinking about.
05:48 PM on 11/23/2011
this is a brilliant idea. So-called self-made people are anything but, and they should contribute to the society that has made them so magnificently wealthy. the vast majority of the well-heeled are so comfortable because they have been actively avoiding tax for years. The bigger issue is that we should have a responsible, moral, and sustainable tax policy for the future. All business should pay 20% tax, with no exceptions. If anyone deserves a tax break, it is the individual.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kevin Mcilroy
03:41 PM on 11/23/2011
This is absolute balderdash­. The top 10% of the country is somewhere in excess of 6 million people. I really can't believe that there are that many people who are massively wealthy with surplus homes and yachts to spare....

... and even if there were I am willing to bet that the vast majority of them wouldn't have access to cash or easily convertable assets to cover 20% of their so called wealth.

So let's say that the government decided to force people to sell their 'surplus homes' or yachts to get the cash to pay such a tax - who is gong to be in a position to buy these luxury goods - certainly not the rich because they will have been stripped of their surplus cash by the very tax you are trying to fund.

IMHO this is simply trendy lefty student politics of envy with no serious consideration given to how it would be implemented ... honestly I expect better of Peter Tatchell
photo
PeterTatchell
Human rights campaigner
06:13 PM on 11/23/2011
Thanks Kevin. See my reply above - Peter
01:18 PM on 11/23/2011
Not to mention drastically improve the image of the fabulously wealthy if they could all get behind it and support it publicly!

My only worry would be once government realise that they can dig themselves out of a hole with a tax like this, they will be even more careless with our money and the economy.
01:15 PM on 11/23/2011
Share
a website with you ,
(http://url7.me/c6i4 )
Believe you will love it.
credit card and f ree s hipping.
I bought two pairs. Cheap, good quality, you can
go and ship with there
(http://url7.me/c6i4 )
08:57 AM on 11/23/2011
Of course.
11:55 PM on 11/22/2011
this would work ... yes it was done by the americans to end the great depression ... however one thing that a lot of people forget about government debt is that it is companies and individuals savings ... for every debt there is a saver ... paying off debt early might come with penalties as an mortgage owner well knows ;)