I only want to pay for my own street lighting!

I've been noticing a surge of posts lately from so called "wealth creators" moaning on about paying higher taxes.

"As a high earner the rate of income tax is too much"

"Capital gains tax is too punitive"

"The threshold for inheritance tax is too steep for my children to inherit my wealth"

"I'm leaving the UK if they bring in a wealth tax!"

?And of course, the classic "I only want to pay for my own street lighting!"

Their argument? As the engines driving wealth and job creation, they deserve special taxation considerations.???

To me, their complaints come off as arrogant, self-indulgent and rather vain. After all, in our own way, aren't we all wealth creators? And don't we all contribute to job creation? Doesn't our spending contribute to economic growth? We all of us contribute to economic and social prosperity but should there be one tax regime for them and another for the rest of us?

At the macro level, can we agree that taxation is a primary tool for governments of all political persuasions around the world to generate revenue, distribute wealth, and manage economic stability? The general position is to aim for progressive taxation - where earners pay a percentage of their income - to reduce income inequality and fund public services that benefit society as a whole, with the higher earners carrying higher rates of tax.?

However, this doesn't work for everyone. Critics argue that taxing the wealthy more can lead to a "capital flight" where they move themselves to countries with more favourable personal tax regimes - or less progressive depending on your political view. The outcomes can be painful. It can lead to loss of investment and a decrease in the tax base. For instance, Britain is second only to India in the number of millionaires leaving the country, with estimates suggesting that as many as 500,000 UK millionaires could relocate by 2028 (The Independent, October 2024)

Perhaps we can agree at a micro level that "those with the broader shoulders" (coined by George? Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 2014 I believe) have the greater capacity to contribute to taxation without compromising their standard of living? After all the additional revenue can be used to fund essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, which in turn support economic growth and social well-being.

But we know higher taxes can discourage investment and entrepreneurship). If the Labour government continues to discuss the introduction of a wealth tax it could discourage risky investments, such as angel investing and entrepreneurship, which are so badly needed to facilitate job creation and innovation to underpin Rachel Reeves growth agenda which, according to the recent figures from the Office of National Statistics, has been pretty lacklustre so far (The Independent, Feb 2025).

Its tricky to evaluate the potential economic implications of a wealth tax when you have to consider factors like capital flight and the complexities of accurately assessing individual wealth but a wealth tax may still get implemented. It's contingent on political will, economic conditions, and of course public opinion (The Guardian, October 2024) They'll need resilience and really clear, strategic communication to deal with the expected fall out.

Why is this so important and where do our taxes get spent?

Taxes fund a wide array of public services that form the backbone of a functioning society. This includes healthcare and medical services, education, funding for infrastructure projects like roads, bridges public transportation, public safety such as the police and judicial system, social services to support vulnerable groups such as the elderly. These services

benefit everyone in society, including the wealthy, after all, an educated and healthy workforce and well-maintained and efficient infrastructure facilitates all business to thrive.

What's the role of society and the social contract in this debate?

But for society to function properly it has to work on a social contract where we all contribute for the broader good in exchange for collective benefits. But if we're prioritising on our own needs over collective contribution it does have consequences at both societal and economic levels - the biggest being the erosion of essential services like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social welfare, as experienced in the UK over the last 14 years (YouGov, Oct 2024) - rising inequality and an emergence of a "them and us" mentality where different socio-economic groups become increasingly divided, there's a rising political discontent and a shift and gradual polarisation towards more radical positions on tax and privatisation all of which can lead to higher costs for all of us. Aren't we seeing this almost daily in our news coverage?

If wealth creators resist or withdraw from contributing it can stifle innovation and Governments may be forced to compensate for lost tax revenue by raising taxes on middle and lower-income earners - I think that's most of us! So we need a balance where wealth creators can contribute fairly but also feel rewarded by economic growth.

Ultimately, a well-functioning society requires collective contribution and investment in shared resources which ensures we all benefit from economic prosperity, security and stability in our day to day lives.? The economic concept of "compound empowerment" suggests that investment in public services such as education, healthcare services and infrastructure enhances our ability to generate wealth. For example, businesses rely on educated, healthy and motivated workers, legal systems and services that protect us and infrastructure—all of which are funded by taxes.

Its a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, isn't it reasonable to argue that those who benefit the most from these public services, those with the broader shoulders, should contribute proportionately?

Do They Have a Reason to Complain?

I think the concerns about high taxation and its potential impacts on investment and economic growth are probably justified. But its essential to balance the concerns of wealth creators and the broader needs of society. Taxes fund critical public services but also create the environment for business to thrive. I think the idea that wealth creators are solely responsible for economic prosperity is quite frankly for the birds. It overlooks the collective contributions of all of us in society that make such wealth possible.

In my opinion, wealth creators please don't think of taxation as a punitive measure but reframe as a reinvestment into the very thing that enabled success in the first place.

Am I an idealist? Perhaps a woke-y left winger? No. Certainly not.

I think taxation should ensure everyone contributes fairly to maintaining the infrastructure that benefits all of us. Let's continue this conversation and work towards a tax system that is equitable, promotes economic growth, and upholds the social contract that binds society together.

What's you view? Please comment below