Luton Outlaws - Independent Message Board for Luton Town FC

I fell out with someone last year because they said Stephenson won't achieve anything. Their argument was basically the wealthy establishment are letting him have his moment in the spotlight precisely because they know he represents absolutely no threat to them whatsoever. It really pissed me off because I was just getting into his work and instinctively wanted to nip any criticism of him in the bud.

Having said all that I have wondered in the meantime if my friend was correct.

I broadly agree with Stephenson however I do agree with the comment that even if you do tax the super wealthy more it doesn't mean that extra tax revenue will be spent sensibly.

I also think the only way the wealth divide can be addressed is by global unity of the 99.99% or whatever it is that aren't super wealthy. And of course that 99.99% is a sliding scale of wealth in and of itself.

Divide and rule is the oldest trick in the book and it appears to be being played out everywhere at the moment. This forum is a microcosm of that with the same old arguments trotted out virtually every day.

From the clip I saw advertising this programme I think Fulford had a very salient point in that if the super wealthy are taxed it will naturally reduce the value of their assets. I agree that is almost certainly true. I don't know to what extent though, and so it's difficult to know if it could be a counter productive policy.

Another issue is establishing ownership in order to be able to tax. Super wealthy people are very adept at using shell companies to obscure true ownership. I imagine this is possibly the single biggest practical obstacle to gathering Stephenson's suggested 2% on assets over £10m.

There's also the issue of those who are asset rich but cash poor. I'm thinking mainly here about legitimate farmers who might need to sell land to pay annual tax bills. This of course leads them down the path of shrinking farms and their land is probably going to be bought up by corporations who then get control of our domestic food chain, which could have disastrous consequences for our national security.

Despite all of these concerns I still think a broader share of wealth is likely to be beneficial for society but it isn't guaranteed to be so. It requires sensible government spending and a pro active approach to see off unintended consequences that otherwise could make things even worse.