Boomer life according to the economist

[brickwall]

Slow.Patrol said:

brickwall said:

The top taxpayer group will be very light on retired people - because their income drops when they retire.

I'm not sure their income will drop substantially. The top tax payers will be maxing out their pension contributions while they are working.

I’m afraid that’s just not borne out by the facts.

To be in the top 1% of incomes (ie the group paying 30% of all tax) you need to have a gross household income of c.£180k+

The IFS has good analysis here on who makes up that group.
- Less than 10% of them are pensioners
- Over 60% are aged 35-54 (20% are aged 55-64)

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_...

As I said - this is part of the political/economic problem.

The tax revenue is coming from high earners in their 30s-50s. Very few will have DB pensions, and many will be stuck paying big mortgages having been born too late to ride the property boom.

At the same time, 25% of pensioner households are millionaires.

You can see why the income-earning group getting soaked for tax might not be so keen to get soaked even more, to give more money to a group that’s pretty wealthy already.

[NickZ24]

havoc said:

i.e. the very-rich are raking it in vs everyone else.
Ref. the rest of your point, I'm not sure how you can say wealth divides and inequality aren't that bad.

I think envy can be used to get the energy needed to get your feet off the ground. Do you envy MCDonald? Start working, convert your fish & chips shop into a chain. Get investors and so on till you get past MCDonald.
It'll take 25 years and many people you can trust, plus good banking and a bit of luck that the economy makes it.

[Jag_NE]

My dad was a boomer by this definition and earned a massive step change in material terms vs his upbringing but he really was a grafter. Pound for pound I have a more luxurious lifestyle but that’s only on the basis of my wife working, mum didn’t. I’d say professionally we are a similar level but I definitely couldn’t provide like for like on just my income. Women have far better support and opportunities when it comes to work these days, if mum had worked it wouldn’t have gone beyond part time low wages whereas my wife earns a very decent salary which makes all the difference to our buying power. Pound for pound we are better off.

[GT03ROB]

brickwall said:

I’m afraid that’s just not borne out by the facts.

To be in the top 1% of incomes (ie the group paying 30% of all tax) you need to have a gross household income of c.£180k+

At the same time, 25% of pensioner households are millionaires.

You can see why the income-earning group getting soaked for tax might not be so keen to get soaked even more, to give more money to a group that’s pretty wealthy already.

Whilst I'm sure your data is correct, I would much rather be in the former group earning over 180k pa, than the latter where having retired I have a million in assets of which 500k is tied up in my house & I have to draw an income for life from the balance of 500k, giving me an income of around 20k (plus my state pension of course)

[brickwall]

GT03ROB said:

brickwall said:

I’m afraid that’s just not borne out by the facts.

To be in the top 1% of incomes (ie the group paying 30% of all tax) you need to have a gross household income of c.£180k+

At the same time, 25% of pensioner households are millionaires.

You can see why the income-earning group getting soaked for tax might not be so keen to get soaked even more, to give more money to a group that’s pretty wealthy already.

Whilst I'm sure your data is correct, I would much rather be in the former group earning over 180k pa, than the latter where having retired I have a million in assets of which 500k is tied up in my house & I have to draw an income for life from the balance of 500k, giving me an income of around 20k (plus my state pension of course)

That of course is not the comparison though.

The comparison (at the top 5% level, as the data is better) is between:

A.
A pensioner with a gross income of £75k.
- You don’t pay NI and have no mortgage/rent costs
- Leaving you with £4,800/month to do with as you please

B.
A working adult with a gross income of £87k.
- You pay NI and a student loan, and 4% towards your DC pension pot, leaving you with £4,400/month.
- Out of which you then have to pay £1,250 of housing costs (probably on the low side - average rent in the UK is £1,220; average mortgage costs are now comparable following rate rises)
- Leaving you with £3,150/month of disposable income after housing.

Note: Individual A pays £17k of direct tax per year, individual B pays £26k.

[Steve H]

brickwall said:

That of course is not the comparison though.

The comparison (at the top 5% level, as the data is better) is between:

A.
A pensioner with a gross income of £75k.
- You don’t pay NI and have no mortgage/rent costs
- Leaving you with £4,800/month to do with as you please

B.
A working adult with a gross income of £87k.
- You pay NI and a student loan, and 4% towards your DC pension pot, leaving you with £4,400/month.
- Out of which you then have to pay £1,250 of housing costs (probably on the low side - average rent in the UK is £1,220; average mortgage costs are now comparable following rate rises)
- Leaving you with £3,150/month of disposable income after housing.

Note: Individual A pays £17k of direct tax per year, individual B pays £26k.

I’m not sure that demonstrates much other than accumulating assets over a lifetime has it benefits and the highest earning pensioners now were very likely the highest earning workers so were in the best position to do it.

Possibly the top 5% of boomers are benefiting from pension schemes the current earners will never get but most of the other 95% aren’t and most of them also didn’t even get automatic employers contributions like millennials do. As ever, there will be groups that win and lose between the generations.

[havoc]

asfault said:

Really?
Apart from the stupid south east of England i dont think prices are crazy here.

Aberdeen 2 decent areas westhill and culter 1 bed and 2 beds are cheaper than they were 2008/2009

I think swathes of Scotland, Wales and the North are fine, but pretty much the entirely of southern England (arguably up to the West Midlands - it's certainly gone a bit silly in the Warks towns) and the more desirable parts of the NE and NW are facing a real problem (so probably >75% of the population of GB), as are the 'posher' parts of Scotland and Wales (have you SEEN Edinburgh prices).

Socially the biggest issue is that "children" literally cannot afford to move out of their parents home without moving 100s of miles away.

[brickwall]

Steve H said:

brickwall said:

That of course is not the comparison though.

The comparison (at the top 5% level, as the data is better) is between:

A.
A pensioner with a gross income of £75k.
- You don’t pay NI and have no mortgage/rent costs
- Leaving you with £4,800/month to do with as you please

B.
A working adult with a gross income of £87k.
- You pay NI and a student loan, and 4% towards your DC pension pot, leaving you with £4,400/month.
- Out of which you then have to pay £1,250 of housing costs (probably on the low side - average rent in the UK is £1,220; average mortgage costs are now comparable following rate rises)
- Leaving you with £3,150/month of disposable income after housing.

Note: Individual A pays £17k of direct tax per year, individual B pays £26k.

I’m not sure that demonstrates much other than accumulating assets over a lifetime has it benefits and the highest earning pensioners now were very likely the highest earning workers so were in the best position to do it.

Possibly the top 5% of boomers are benefiting from pension schemes the current earners will never get but most of the other 95% aren’t and most of them also didn’t even get automatic employers contributions like millennials do. As ever, there will be groups that win and lose between the generations.

I think it demonstrates quite a lot, when you consider the principal drivers of asset accumulation and pension income generation that sustain A’s position have been
- Massive housing asset price growth
- Very generous state and employer-funded pension arrangements

These are things that are either not available to, or paid for by, Person B.

The question is:
For an average pensioner who was at the [5]% point on the income distribution through their working life - where would someone 30 years younger need to be on the income distribution today to live in the same house and enjoy the same (real terms) disposable income?

If the answer is “at a higher point on the distribution” then in effect subsequent generations are getting poorer than their forebears - the reversal of a 200-year trend.

[NRS]

asfault said:

Olivera said:

havoc said:

And if you look at (in particular) housing prices now, there's an entire generation or two who have no hope unless their families are able to give them a leg-up...which is essentially going back to Victorian/Edwardian lack of social mobility.

Indeed. Property ownership becoming mostly hereditary is a disturbing trend, splitting us into a nation of serfs and landlords. In the fullness of time there may either be a rebalancing/redistribution that addresses this, or the whole edifice will be pulled down in a revolutionary zeal.

Really?
Apart from the stupid south east of England i dont think prices are crazy here.

Aberdeen 2 decent areas westhill and culter 1 bed and 2 beds are cheaper than they were 2008/2009

That's because of the oil crash and longer term decline of the North Sea now most big companies are moving out.

brickwall said:

Steve H said:

brickwall said:

That of course is not the comparison though.

The comparison (at the top 5% level, as the data is better) is between:

A.
A pensioner with a gross income of £75k.
- You don’t pay NI and have no mortgage/rent costs
- Leaving you with £4,800/month to do with as you please

B.
A working adult with a gross income of £87k.
- You pay NI and a student loan, and 4% towards your DC pension pot, leaving you with £4,400/month.
- Out of which you then have to pay £1,250 of housing costs (probably on the low side - average rent in the UK is £1,220; average mortgage costs are now comparable following rate rises)
- Leaving you with £3,150/month of disposable income after housing.

Note: Individual A pays £17k of direct tax per year, individual B pays £26k.

I’m not sure that demonstrates much other than accumulating assets over a lifetime has it benefits and the highest earning pensioners now were very likely the highest earning workers so were in the best position to do it.

Possibly the top 5% of boomers are benefiting from pension schemes the current earners will never get but most of the other 95% aren’t and most of them also didn’t even get automatic employers contributions like millennials do. As ever, there will be groups that win and lose between the generations.

I think it demonstrates quite a lot, when you consider the principal drivers of asset accumulation and pension income generation that sustain A’s position have been
- Massive housing asset price growth
- Very generous state and employer-funded pension arrangements

These are things that are either not available to, or paid for by, Person B.

The question is:
For an average pensioner who was at the [5]% point on the income distribution through their working life - where would someone 30 years younger need to be on the income distribution today to live in the same house and enjoy the same (real terms) disposable income?

If the answer is “at a higher point on the distribution” then in effect subsequent generations are getting poorer than their forebears - the reversal of a 200-year trend.

In addition, since around the GFC wage increases have basically stagnated versus inflation, so they don't improve someone's lifestyle. Whereas assets have grown loads. So if you have savings (mostly older people) your wealth is growing far more than someone who is earning. It's been almost 2 decades that has been the case now.

Slow.Patrol said:

For those interested in a few statistics, this is an interesting blog

https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/somethings-got-to-g...

It seems the over 85s are the problem and not the Boomers.

I quite like Neil O'Brien. He seems well informed for a Conservative MP.

This is an excellent illustration of the issue I mentioned before. Those trotting out the line of "there's no difference in the generations, just different winners or losers" need to read this. Deomgraphics basically has already written most of the future. A lot of younger people don't dislike the older ones, but when they get told to "just save up" or cut costs by those who will take far more out of the system than the younger people will it does annoy them somewhat. And yes, there will be winners and losers in each generation, but overall there is far more winners in the older one now compared to what can be the case for the younger generations, purely down to demographics (plus the slow/no change of policies to counter this).

[Scootersp]

havoc said:

...and how the **** are all the rich, selfish "just work harder" bods on here going to get their skinny lattes in the morning or their latest gadgets delivered to them without people "lower down the food chain" (sic).

This is a big part of it too, the rich get rich from the less wealthy spending, there is always an interdependence? I use Bin men as an example of a service that whilst low skilled, few would ever want to do, and yet it is 100% necessary regardless of income/status and has severe consequences if no one did it.

You don't get to where you have without others, if the middle and lower classes are being left behind this is not good in the long run for currently wealthy people with businesses, especially initially the non essential ones, increasing housing costs, food and energy, is bad news for all non essential spending businesses?

Some of the highest earners are in finance that have had their share of history emergency handouts/support and some of them create nothing, they do "swaps" and "trades" which really just take fees from operating businesses, yes necessary in a untrustworthy business world/environment they mitigate risk for companies but hardly the pinnacle of human betterment, but in pays really well so demands more respect?

Like footballers, they only receive huge sums because of millions of supporter/viewers paying subscriptions and the sponsors, who are companies, that also rely on millions of consumers spending, you aren't a rich person just because of your skills you need others to have some money to pay you for them (ask a Disc golfer pro compared to a regular golf pro?).

I only say this somewhat harshly as you can easily throw dirt in all directions, lazy/greedy/worthy/not worthy etc etc but we should keep an eye on the extremes and on what you want an overall society to look like, if you are an important spoke in the wheel then you need to be considered, we seem largely disconnected almost ignorant of our interdependence?

You have a Thames water employee who's job is fat bombs, everyday fat bombs in the st, without who your crap eventually comes back into your house, then you look at the company.....

"The company has been criticised for paying substantial dividends to shareholders while simultaneously taking out loans, accumulating £14 billion in debts. In June 2023, Thames Water was reported to be close to financial collapse; while it secured £750m from shareholders in July 2023, the company warned it would need a further £2.5bn from investors by 2030."

So shareholders have been getting some money, the lender of the debt theirs, the exec team theirs, all despite very dubious performance? while the fat bomb buster guy putting in the shifts is scrapping by and looking at the above is facing a job loss. Only he can't can he because it's an essential service and so what will happen "bills have to go up" (reliance on all of us again) so that the pension funds aren't affected and they don't default on the lender ie so there is no major turmoil/losses, but it's another straw added to fat bomb guys back?

[NRS]

Scootersp said:

This is a big part of it too, the rich get rich from the less wealthy spending, there is always an interdependence? I use Bin men as an example of a service that whilst low skilled, few would ever want to do, and yet it is 100% necessary regardless of income/status and has severe consequences if no one did it.

You don't get to where you have without others, if the middle and lower classes are being left behind this is not good in the long run for currently wealthy people with businesses, especially initially the non essential ones, increasing housing costs, food and energy, is bad news for all non essential spending businesses?

Some of the highest earners are in finance that have had their share of history emergency handouts/support and some of them create nothing, they do "swaps" and "trades" which really just take fees from operating businesses, yes necessary in a untrustworthy business world/environment they mitigate risk for companies but hardly the pinnacle of human betterment, but in pays really well so demands more respect?

Like footballers, they only receive huge sums because of millions of supporter/viewers paying subscriptions and the sponsors, who are companies, that also rely on millions of consumers spending, you aren't a rich person just because of your skills you need others to have some money to pay you for them (ask a Disc golfer pro compared to a regular golf pro?).

I only say this somewhat harshly as you can easily throw dirt in all directions, lazy/greedy/worthy/not worthy etc etc but we should keep an eye on the extremes and on what you want an overall society to look like, if you are an important spoke in the wheel then you need to be considered, we seem largely disconnected almost ignorant of our interdependence?

You have a Thames water employee who's job is fat bombs, everyday fat bombs in the st, without who your crap eventually comes back into your house, then you look at the company.....

"The company has been criticised for paying substantial dividends to shareholders while simultaneously taking out loans, accumulating £14 billion in debts. In June 2023, Thames Water was reported to be close to financial collapse; while it secured £750m from shareholders in July 2023, the company warned it would need a further £2.5bn from investors by 2030."

So shareholders have been getting some money, the lender of the debt theirs, the exec team theirs, all despite very dubious performance? while the fat bomb buster guy putting in the shifts is scrapping by and looking at the above is facing a job loss. Only he can't can he because it's an essential service and so what will happen "bills have to go up" (reliance on all of us again) so that the pension funds aren't affected and they don't default on the lender ie so there is no major turmoil/losses, but it's another straw added to fat bomb guys back?

And partly illustrates why the whole "rich pay their way many times over" can be true, but also might not reflect reality. Some of the rich have got rich and continue to get richer because they pull money unsustainably out of a company and make short term decisions, all the while they pay themselves very well. The issue then falls on the taxpayers. The person making that sort of wealth IMO probably should be taxed far more than they do, because their extra tax they pay from being rich doesn't nearly cover the extra cost to society for their decisions to benefit themselves. That's very different from a rich person who builds up a company well, aims to look after their employees and so on. But of course we don't split them for obvious reasons.

[havoc]

NRS said:

And partly illustrates why the whole "rich pay their way many times over" can be true, but also might not reflect reality. Some of the rich have got rich and continue to get richer because they pull money unsustainably out of a company and make short term decisions, all the while they pay themselves very well. The issue then falls on the taxpayers. The person making that sort of wealth IMO probably should be taxed far more than they do, because their extra tax they pay from being rich doesn't nearly cover the extra cost to society for their decisions to benefit themselves. That's very different from a rich person who builds up a company well, aims to look after their employees and so on. But of course we don't split them for obvious reasons.

I think the difference is (typically, not always) the sort of person who becomes a professional "big corporate executive" vs the sort of person who is essentially a successful entrepreneur.

...so there ARE ways of managing it - through restrictions on reward schemes for listed-company executives - that don't then need to apply to private company executives (who will be beholden to private shareholders who will almost certainly pay far closer attention than listed-co shareholders).


The bigger point you're missing - and a dead easy one for HMRC to go after if someone gave them the right legislation - is that we SHOULD be taxing wealth. Give corporate pension schemes (for companies >x employees, to avoid cute little avoidance schemes) an exemption. Give genuine enterprise investment an exemption. But otherwise let's go after the parasitic rent-seeking behaviours and stockpiling behaviours that are probably stymying genuine business investment because these assets (property, bitcoin, certain commodities) offer far better returns than value-creation activity such as business. Remove the exemption for principal private residence once the sale price tops e.g. £1m - that will cool the top of the housing market off, and dissuade foreign investment...or better still, announce that will take effect from 6 months time and watch the supply of houses spike as all the investor-owners try to exit before tax is due...and excess supply will lead to a drop in price!

[Scootersp]

The barrier to all that being, almost anyone with the power to do it, will lose out politically, personally and likely ps off most of their family and friends! Quite some conviction/integrity required there (not something we've seen much of from the political class of late?)

Has it gone to far to change, I don't disagree with the changes but I'm sure there are unintended consequences! I fear the can will be continued to be kicked and things managed until some sort of black swan event befalls them/us?

[GT03ROB]

havoc said:

The bigger point you're missing - and a dead easy one for HMRC to go after if someone gave them the right legislation - is that we SHOULD be taxing wealth.

Why should we?

If you are truly talking wealth taxes then it's interesting that countries have moved away from this. Th number of countries that operate wealth taxes is very very small. Thiose that remain operate only at the very highest levels have numerous exemptions such that for 99% of the population they are meaningless.

They really would end up as a tax based in envy.

[NRS]

GT03ROB said:

havoc said:

The bigger point you're missing - and a dead easy one for HMRC to go after if someone gave them the right legislation - is that we SHOULD be taxing wealth.

Why should we?

If you are truly talking wealth taxes then it's interesting that countries have moved away from this. Th number of countries that operate wealth taxes is very very small. Thiose that remain operate only at the very highest levels have numerous exemptions such that for 99% of the population they are meaningless.

They really would end up as a tax based in envy.

The reason IMO they should tax wealth is that is grows far faster than income these days. You create a 2 tier society where it’s not about how hard you work a lot of the time, it’s about what wealth you start out with. Wages struggle to keep up with inflation for almost 2 decades so there is no growth there, it’s in wealth it happens.

So for the majority of people their life is set up by if their parents have money. In some cases that is larger long term family wealth, but for the majority it’s likely to be did their parents/grandparents buy property. If they did and they give them a hand it gets you out of the rental market immediately, saving 5-15 years of renting to build a deposit, and also means you can put more money into shares to earn more wealth (either pension or savings) during this time. Compound interest causes that to increase far more. That’s important as we almost all only have direct contribution pensions now.

So most of your financial success is based on your parents, not your own hard work. It’s the irony that many who say it’s their own hard work that is important ignore that in a generational timescale things reverse and it becomes about what your parents did. Previously real wage growth could help fix this, but we don’t have it now hence thinking it is a good idea.

And just to say this isn’t envy, I am lucky enough to earn well, I’m also in a country that has a wealth tax and so both combined mean I’ll likely pay a wealth tax in future. I have been lucky enough that I am in a situation where a well paying job changed things, but most others my age don’t have that - it’s clear to see what most financial success for others in my age group is about what their parents did, not our jobs.

[GT03ROB]

NRS said:

The reason IMO they should tax wealth is that is grows far faster than income these days. You create a 2 tier society where it’s not about how hard you work a lot of the time, it’s about what wealth you start out with. Wages struggle to keep up with inflation for almost 2 decades so there is no growth there, it’s in wealth it happens.

So for the majority of people their life is set up by if their parents have money. In some cases that is larger long term family wealth, but for the majority it’s likely to be did their parents/grandparents buy property. If they did and they give them a hand it gets you out of the rental market immediately, saving 5-15 years of renting to build a deposit, and also means you can put more money into shares to earn more wealth (either pension or savings) during this time. Compound interest causes that to increase far more. That’s important as we almost all only have direct contribution pensions now.

So most of your financial success is based on your parents, not your own hard work. It’s the irony that many who say it’s their own hard work that is important ignore that in a generational timescale things reverse and it becomes about what your parents did. Previously real wage growth could help fix this, but we don’t have it now hence thinking it is a good idea.

And just to say this isn’t envy, I am lucky enough to earn well, I’m also in a country that has a wealth tax and so both combined mean I’ll likely pay a wealth tax in future. I have been lucky enough that I am in a situation where a well paying job changed things, but most others my age don’t have that - it’s clear to see what most financial success for others in my age group is about what their parents did, not our jobs.

You are also in a country with no inheritance tax..... where in the UK there is.

[Steve H]

If you want to increase the welfare pressure on the state having to care for an aging population I can’t think of a better way of doing it than creating a tax that actually encourages people not to build up enough wealth to sustain them independently in their old age .

[havoc]

GT03ROB said:

havoc said:

The bigger point you're missing - and a dead easy one for HMRC to go after if someone gave them the right legislation - is that we SHOULD be taxing wealth.

Why should we?

If you are truly talking wealth taxes then it's interesting that countries have moved away from this. Th number of countries that operate wealth taxes is very very small. Thiose that remain operate only at the very highest levels have numerous exemptions such that for 99% of the population they are meaningless.

They really would end up as a tax based in envy.

I don't intend it to be a tax based on envy.

I intend it to be a SMALL tax on the way the very rich make a lot of their money, but mainly an incentive to recycle that money - to get it moving the economy better. For the last 20-30 years, and especially since 2007, investment in "value add" activities* in the UK has been far too low, as a lot of investment money has been going towards higher return but non-value-add commodities (I mentioned a few above).

I see the taxation piece as a small stick attached to big incentive and exemption carrots such as enterprise zones and company investment reliefs - we HAVE to get our economy going again, but to do so requires a substantial rethink on the way investment happens and works and how we encourage that - the Tories, despite proclaiming themselves to be the "party of the economy" have been utterly st at this.


...so what's happened is INCOME levels across the country have largely stagnated since 2007, while WEALTH levels (which were already massively inequal across the country) have grown substantially. 99% of the population would only ever see a small part of it in the growth in the value of their house, but that top-1% (arguably the top 0.1% - I'd be surprised if ANY PH'er is part of that group) have been sitting back and doing very little to ensure their wealth levels shoot up...and it's only taxed at the point they crystallise the gain (and even then there are so many reliefs and avoidance techniques that very little tax actually gets paid, and instead they turn that lovely capital growth into cash through doing very little, unlike the remaining 99% who are having to work increasingly hard just to keep the same standard of living).

You can call that envy if you like, but I see it more like parasitic behaviour. It's a drain on the economy...that switch in the focus to putting money into essentially static assets rather than companies and businesses is a drain on the circular flow of money, which means it's a drag on economic growth, a decelerator for the country. It's not the only reason the UK has stagnated (there are plenty of those), but it's a very clear contributing factor.




* Anything that increases our GDP. Usually but not always investment in companies, or companies investing in new tech etc. to grow.

[havoc]

GT03ROB said:

You are also in a country with no inheritance tax..... where in the UK there is.

...and the rich have tax advisors who make sure that only a token amount ever gets paid.

IHT and CGT, for the truly rich, are only really taxes on laziness - if they can be bothered to take the right actions, they can avoid a lot of the potential bill. It's typically the merely slightly-rich that get caught by them both.


If you think I'm aiming any of this at "successful people" who've worked hard and deserve their wealth, you're missing the point - the things I'm talking about are aimed at those with at least 8-figure asset values and personal advisors who manage it all for them.

[Scootersp]

GT03ROB said:

You are also in a country with no inheritance tax..... where in the UK there is.

I'm not sure what country he's in, but it sounds like that setup could work, ie if you can earn well but get taxed higher when you are alive but then your family gets to keep all/more when you die, this in itself means the tax burden of today is largely paid by the taxes of the same time period and not deferred into the future, there is a sort of simplicity/honesty in that?

An issue is PAYE / tax on earnings is high (enough I'd say) but when you get way above this you have tax/wealth global mobility, whole setups in the Cayman Islands etc etc to avoid tax for the super wealthy. Trusts to avoid inheritance tax offshore this and that, all 'above board' tax avoidance not evasion because of rules made by who, not us the little guys, if you make the rules you make them to suit yourself, just as everyone on here is fighting their own corner if they are wealthy or not/stand to lose or gain.

These super wealthy are more powerful, have more clout, than governments, "they will take their business elsewhere" if X Y Z happens/is imposed, there has been a gradual shift where the powerful are outside or in collusion with the political classes, the ones we vote for and that apparently run the show. These come and go, in the UK recently with alarming regularity, but I bet Tory, Republican, Democrats etc donors are pretty consistent over decades and the Super wealthy don't do 5 year terms and then pass it on to another they are ever present.

Money always used to mean power, I think it still does, but the powerful people we see on the TV, the leaders the 'decision' makers aren't the most wealthy are they? Those people are off the publicity radar, not at all 'shouty' about it but in the background but I think it's incredulous that they don't have huge influence.

So the wealth tax is unlikely to make it's way to these people even if legislated in!

Edited by Scootersp on Wednesday 10th April 10:12