We don't need a bigger market for luxury dog sitters or sports car manufacturing, better allocate those resources for childcare, elder care, or other chronically understaffed fields.
“Failure” is of course subjective, but I would say that the gargantuan increase in wealth inequality is a datapoint in favour of suggesting that its a failed model.
Post-War consensus Britain was a golden age, and neoliberalism has been harmful to the quality of life for an overwhelming number of British people. This is just factual, by all the data we have.
edit: The reality is they don't spend enough for it to offset the harms that wealth inequality brings.
I know a couple of people who have been using this London loophole as a way to avoid paying taxes anywhere at all. They are not residents here, they are not residents there, and their income is earnt globally. So they think they shouldn't have to pay tax to any particular country.
source? Has "the harms that wealth inequality brings" even been quantified?
Deng Xiaoping's "let some people get rich first" worked out pretty well.
If you're trying to imply the housing shortage only exists because rich people have too much money and are making prices too high for everyone else, that doesn't make much sense. If everyone had the same amount of wealth, you'd still have the same housing crisis. Specifically, there's still going to be the same amount of houses in London, and the same amount of people who want to live there but can't. The problem of housing in London is that there isn't enough for everyone who wants to live there, not that the rich are making prices unaffordable.
The people who hoard the wealth in the US actively attack regulation and avoid taxes so that they don't have to redistribute the wealth. At that point, you're a drain on the system.
Source? Aside from some lip service paid about "common prosperity", China definitely does not have a strong wealth redistribution system. I can't find good metrics on size of welfare systems specifically, but using the crude metric of government revenue as % of GDP, it's clear that China isn't some sort of global leader in redistribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Government_revenues_as_a_...
I don't think this does your argument any favors because by your words, it didn't work. Because you're right, China's "let a few people get rich" idea led to massive wealth inequality but redistribution was always at the center of the idea and what I'm talking about are recent reforms that Xi is taking to accelerate that redistribution such as and introducing salary caps, increasing taxes, and creating more social security programs the rich have to pay into. So China is right now building their strong wealth redistribution network.
and its gdp growth, prosperity, and investment rate going down at an exactly same rate…
"GDP growth" and "investment rate" are just really terrible proxy indicators for the thing most people actually care about, i.e. quality of life for the common person. Without context they're just distasteful weasel words that strongly imply that GDP is somehow representative of the quality of life, which only serves to trick people into voting against their own interests.
And why might that be? Could it be that the rich are using their wealth and disproportional influence that wealth gives them to slow down or block new development to keep their property values high, or are we supposed to believe that places where housing is used as an investment vehicle are just naturally incompetent at building more housing?
It's curious that the percentages used to defend not taxing the rich (whether they are UK citizens, or operating as "non-doms") tend to be what percentage of the tax burden they pay. But it's never what percentage of their income and capital gains they pay as tax.
I think the latter is a fairer representation, considering we have a progressive taxation system. Someone who is earning over £125k a year should be paying close to 45% of their income and capital gains.
The question is: are they? If not, why not?
As for the down-voter of my parent post, I would like to say that the question was genuine, out of curiosity. I do not see the reason for the down-vote, really.
If it got to a situation where libraries aren't being funded and water isn't clean, which isn't out of the realm of possibility with this administration, then I may need to reevaluate my stance but right now I'm fine paying what I owe.
>The question is: are they? If not, why not?
Because they're non-domiciled and for several centuries the UK didn't tax foreign income of non domiciled residents. It's not a mystery, it was the law.
The non-dom's came to the UK because of this tax regime. The UK can either have the revenue they get from them, which is substantial. Or, it can remove the non-dom regime, hope they stay, but be prepared for total loss of their revenue if they leave.
There's no magical third choice where everyone in that non-dom category stays just cause and pays more money. So far it looks like UK tax revenues are set to diminish from this change.
