This really does seem like propaganda! Not much revealed here either. Says 60 people, earning at least 50m in 21/22, paid over 3bn in tax a year. It says at least 50m but if we take 50m x 60, that's 3bn. They are obviously not paying 100% tax and are therefore earning way way more than 50m a year on average between them. What would be "revealing" is saying exactly how much they earnt and how much tax they paid so we can see the %. I bet it's a significantly lower % than the UK average, which is why this story doesn't "reveal" it.
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
27 points (93.5% liked)
UK Politics
3139 readers
62 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The amount they paid in CGT would be more revealing
Absolute tosh, instead of making a system clearly in favour of the mega rich, how about we make a system that encourages diversification so we have much fewer mega rich but more people have opportunity to step up and fill the gap.
This is one of the issues with the obscenely rich that isn’t as discussed. Here in the USA in New Jersey there was a single man that left the state. there was an uproar because he was one of the wealthiest in the state and there was a genuine concern on the impact of the state budget. The exact dollar amount wasn’t disclosed because it’s confidential in nj but he returned a few years later and there were statements that he contributed about 120-140 million in taxes. The state collected 31.5 billion in taxes in 2016 (the year he left)
So he alone made up almost a half a percent of the entire state revenue in the state with the 7th highest tax revenues in the country. That’s an immense amount of power. When it happened people were wondering if nj would extend deals to keep him. They didn’t, but it’s not crazy to think somewhere would in that scenario when they’re looking at a 9 figure loss that could make up a noticeable percentage of their budget. If he had left Wyoming or South Dakota that slight less than half a percent of the budget could’ve been more like 4-5% or more