Differences with Richard Murphy #3 - Taxing Net Wealth wherever it is found is much simpler than 30+ modifications to UK taxation

 I'm a big fan of Richard Murphy's work - he is doing a truly remarkable job, and his videos are always very clear. 

That said, I don't agree with everything he says, and this is the third post in my series about where I disagree with Richard Murphy. I've already talked about our differences on whether Modern Monetary Theory's description of money creation is realistic,  and the fact that he seems to ignore the potential of using Financial Transaction Taxes. Today I want to address what might be our biggest disagreement of all - the best approach to taxing wealth.

Richard has produced his monumental Taxing Wealth Report 2024. It's an impressive piece of work - 439 pages of detailed analysis proposing over 30 different reforms to UK taxation that could raise around £90 billion annually. But Richard explicitly argues against wealth taxes. He says wealth taxes won't work and are unnecessarily complex. I profoundly disagree.

Let me explain why a universal 1% annual tax on net wealth - applied to every entity globally - would be dramatically simpler than Richard's approach while generating vastly more revenue for addressing global challenges.

Richard's approach requires implementing over 30 separate reforms. We're talking about restricting pension tax relief to basic rate, which would raise £14.5 billion, Investment income surcharges worth £18 billion,  National insurance reforms worth £12.5 billion, Capital gains tax alignment worth £12 billion, Multiple inheritance tax changes, Corporation tax administration reforms, VAT exemption removals, Council tax modifications, Student tax abolition, plus dozens of smaller changes. These are all sensible ideas - with which I have no real disagreements. 

Each of these reforms requires separate legislation, implementation systems, compliance monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms. The administrative overhead alone would be enormous. Compare this to my proposal: "Pay 1% of your net assets annually, wherever they are held." That's it. One simple rule.

Now, Richard's £90 billion target is significant for the UK, but it's completely inadequate for global challenges. Climate action requires $5-7 trillion annually. Global poverty elimination needs $3-4 trillion annually. Universal healthcare access requires $8 trillion annually. Richard's entire UK program could fund climate action for approximately 5 days per year. We need solutions that match the scale of the problems.

Richard raises three main objections to wealth taxes, but none of them apply to my approach. First, he worries about valuation problems - how do you value private companies, art, and other assets? But I've already solved this by focusing on reported net assets. Anyone can see the net assets for 10,568 publicly traded companies by looking at the CompaniesMarketCap site. It shows that they currently have $48.14 trillion in net assets that is already reported and audited.  And the site allows you to select the 440 companies in the UK that have positive net assets - they total $1.936 trillion  - around £1.4 trillion. One percent of that is already £14 billion.  Here is a list of just those UK companies with Net Assets exceeding £1 billion. 

 Private companies in most jurisdictions also file financial statements showing their net assets. There's no valuation guesswork needed - these figures already exist. And in most countries, even private companies have to produce details reports on assets and liabilities, meaning that with no additional effort, it would be simple to calculate net wealth for such companies - it's just assets minus liabilities. 

In the UK, all private limited and public companies must file their accounts at Companies House and those annual accounts will contain a profit and loss account, as well as a balance sheet recording the assets and liabilities of the company. And there are currently 4.6-5.1 million companies registered in the UK. The accounts have already been done - and calculating 1% of net assets is trivial. And, amazingly, anyone can download all of those financial statements for just £1 each by going to this website!

I founded a company called SpiketNet Technology in France in 1999. For18 years, I attended the annual shareholders meeting where we got the full financial details. But, as with many companies, we actually had essentially no net assets - a few tables, chairs and computers! We rented the office space, and most of the money went in salary costs. We would have never paid anything under such a scheme.  I suspect that a large proportion of the 5 million UK companies would have few or no net assets. 

Anyone can get the annual financial reports of any French company by going to this site, and paying €195 - a lot more than in the UK.  

For individual net wealth, Richard worries about determining the value of property. But, there are plenty of places where you can get estimats of the value of property in the UK. They include Zoopla, RightMove, and MousePrice. There are also House price calculators from Nationwide and Halifax and the Government's Land Registry keeps records of all property transactions. I really don't think it would be unrealistic to get reasonable estimates for all property in the UK. If you can get a free property valuation instantly from your computer, how is this an administrative burden for a wealth tax?

Richard also worries about how to determine the wealth of individuals that own yachts, jewelry, art etc. For me, that's not a real problem. Just charge 1% of the insured value. Sure, people may choose not to insure their goods, but would you not insure your yacht to save 1% of its value? 

Second, Richard worries about discovery problems - how do you find hidden wealth? My "no exceptions" rule eliminates this entirely. Hidden in a trust? The trust pays 1%. Disguised in a company? The company pays 1%. Held personally? The individual pays 1%. Stashed offshore? Still pays 1% globally. Wealthy people can't hide wealth by moving it between entities because every entity pays the same rate. And, if we could get the 1% tax implemented globally, there would literally be nowhere to hide financial wealth. 

Third, Richard claims wealth taxes require "armies of tax inspectors." But my system is way simpler than current taxation. No complex income calculations needed. No capital gains timing issues. No allowances or exemptions to police. Just: "What are your net assets according to your financial statements? Pay 1%."

Here's the thing - Richard himself proves global tax coordination is possible. His work on country-by-country reporting is now implemented in over 90 countries. If we can coordinate complex multinational tax reporting, we can certainly coordinate a simple 1% rate on net assets. The OECD Global Minimum Tax, implemented by 136 countries, shows that ambitious global tax coordination is not only possible but actively happening.

My approach targeting global wealth could generate enormous revenue. Corporate net assets total $48+ trillion from just the largest companies. Individual wealth globally in 2023 was $471 trillion according to the UBS Global Wealth Report for 2024, but  the 2025 edition of the report shows that the total increased by a futher 4.5% since then, bringing the total of at aleast €492 trillion.  Government sovereign wealth funds now total  $14.368 trillion. Institutional assets from universities, foundations, and others total $2+ trillion. We're looking at a total potential base of at least $556 trillion. And that number doesn't include net wealth of private companies and trusts. An annual 1% tax would generate well over $5.56 trillion. That's 60 times larger than Richard's £90 billion target, using a single, simple mechanism rather than 30+ complex reforms.

Richard's approach, while technically sound, suffers from three fundamental limitations. There's a scale mismatch - £90 billion cannot address $5 trillion climate challenges. There's complexity overhead - 30+ reforms create massive administrative burden. And there's national limitation - UK-only solutions can't address global problems.

Richard argues his approach is more "pragmatic," but pragmatism that can't address the scale of the crisis isn't pragmatic - it's defeatist. We can either spend years implementing 30+ complex UK tax reforms to raise £90 billion, or coordinate a single global 1% wealth tax rate to raise $5+ trillion.

Richard worries about the political difficulty of global coordination. But climate change, technological disruption, and global inequality don't respect national borders. These challenges require global solutions. The financial infrastructure already exists. Most wealth is already measured and reported through existing accounting systems. We don't need to invent new valuation methods - we need the political will to apply a modest rate to existing data.

I don't want to be Richard's opponent - I want him to be an ally. His expertise in tax justice and his success with global tax coordination make him exactly the kind of person we need for this effort. Richard's detailed analysis proves that comprehensive tax reform is both technically and politically feasible. The question is whether we're ambitious enough to apply that same rigor to solutions that match the scale of 21st-century challenges.

The climate crisis won't wait for incremental UK tax reform. Global inequality won't be solved by optimizing around the edges of existing systems. We need transformational solutions for transformational times. A universal 1% wealth tax isn't just technically simpler than 30+ tax reforms - it's one of a very limited number of appraoches that can generate the resources needed to address the challenges ahead. The other one would be Financial Transaction Taxes. 

What do you think? Should we be optimizing existing tax systems or designing new ones for the challenges we actually face? I'd love to hear your thoughts.