dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,687
The MPs are working on the assumption that all the wealthy people connected with this country, even the ones like the Hinduja family and Jim Ratcliffe who are resident overseas for tax purposes, will happily pay the 2% on their worldwide assets.This would obviously work as none of these wealthy people would be able to afford top accountants to ensure they don’t pay it.
I wonder if that assumption is justified?
(Incidentally, the Oxfam article referred to in that linked article uses highly prejudiced cherry picking of statistics. Saying that the richest 1% of the people own more assets than the poorest 70% combined, sounds awful. Saying that the richest 1%, including the most extreme of billionaires, have an average of £4m of assets while the poorest 70%, including all the homeless and all the children and pensioners whose homes have been sold to pay for care, have an average of £50k assets - that doesn't seem so bad. Trying to make a case for poverty based on the below-average family of four having £200k in assets? Not quite as desperate-sounding as they would like.)
Richest 1% of people in UK now wealthier than 70% of population combined – Oxfam
Oxfam has released a report highlighting wealth disparities in the UK and around the world.
www.standard.co.uk