Anakin England is a Digital Communications Officer for the City Hall Conservatives and manages a startup social media page called The New One Nation.
The Conservative party must be open to a wealth tax.
There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that we must look the economic rational in the eye and acknowledge that high rates of wealth inequality have serious economic implications. The second reason is we must acknowledge the importance of accessible property ownership for the soul of our country.
Given I’m arguing for a wealth tax, I must tell you that I do not care how much money any individual has. However, I ask you to accept that there must be a point at which wealth inequality becomes an obvious economic problem.
No matter how hard someone works, we could never justify one person owning 100 per cent of an economy’s wealth. Despite obviously being a totalitarian economy, it is easy to understand how such unequal concentrations of wealth would enable monopoly-like distortions on asset values, interest rates, rents and would end market competition. Reasonably then, there must be a limit on the proportion of wealth held by a minority before it starts to jeopardise normal market function.
At what point then does wealth inequality distort markets. I can’t give you an exact Gini-coefficient. However, it isn’t hard to imagine what it would look like if asset markets were being distorted by wealth inequality and how we could end up at that point.
Imagine someone has £10 million. An amateur today could guarantee a return of at least £225,000 by putting it in a bank account with 2.25 per cent interest for 1 year. If you bought the S&P 500 with that money, you’d have a return of £1.5 million in 1 year given the last decade’s average annual performance plus £115,000 from dividends. Buy property and you’ve got roughly a 4% return given asset value growth since 2020 and an average annual return of £595,000 in rent.
Given these rates of return on assets, how on earth do you convince someone to spend their returns in a productive way. For context, the typical turnover of a business in 2025 which used HMRC’s PAYE system to pay income tax was less than £250,000. As a Conservative, I’d hope the rich would invest in a brand-new business venture, employ hundreds of locals in Middlesbrough, and bring economic growth. Equally, as a Conservative, I’d advise they buy the same assets again next year and save themselves the hassle of running a business.
Now, suppose all rich people continue to buy the assets which made them so much money last year. And suppose these individuals have more than £10 million to spend on these assets. What we’d find is asset prices could be propped up by the profits of the asset owning class themselves.
This means wealth inequality has the potential to dislocate prices from their intended market audience. House prices, for example, could lose their connection to wages as the sheer quantity of money reinvested by the rich could maintain house price increases. Similarly, stock market prices would no longer be an assessment of companies’ long-term viability but instead reflect the confidence of stockholders to realise short-term gains.
But that’s just the economics of inequality. These price dislocations in asset markets would have real social effects. Unconservative effects.
Assets are the physical property of Britain. It’s what we see every day. It’s houses, high-street shops, businesses, places of work, roads, trains, factories, energy, oil and industries. If these assets become dislocated from their intended market audience, it would also separate the physical property of Britain from the people’s spirit.
As property prices are dislocated from wages, wage-earners lose access to the stability of home ownership. Individuals lose the safety net of the home and the security to start a family. Houses would lose their charm as they lack the care and investment of long-term familial occupation.
As REITS acquire highstreets, shopkeepers lose the opportunity to own their stores. Businesses’ rents are extracted overseas, storefronts crumble, footfall falls. Highstreets lose their character as local independent entrepreneurs lose access to affordable retail property.
As entire industries flip from public to private, the value of our heritage and standards is pitted against the cost efficiencies of global markets. Steel goes, textile manufacturing goes, shipbuilding goes. And with them, so does the security and quality of employment alongside so much of our regional heritage.
These British assets, the soul of our nation, become portfolio pieces rather than treasured belongings of the people. The love and pride inherent in the British public loses property ownership as a means of expression.
Privilege entails responsibility. Asset owners have a social responsibility to Great Britain to ensure our country’s pride doesn’t fade. But today the asset owning class are increasingly international, and they don’t have to witness the decline of our assets and feel any concern. They only see the gains in asset values and growing flows of rent, interest, and profit.
And if wealth inequality is allowed to grow without intervention, Britain’s physical properties could drift so far from the British people until we’re left only with soulless shells. Highstreet vacancies, derelict housing, lifeless rentals.
It should be no surprise that when Brits witness this increasingly becoming the reality of our nation, they raise the British Flag. They’re making their identity, and Britain’s value to them, known. They want to express their pride at a time when it hurts to see the physical decay of Britain. The people want to take action.
And this is why an unbending allegiance to neoliberal economics could kill the Conservative party. Neoliberal economics is not a manual for action. It is an ideology centred on reducing government action, giving monetary responsibility to central banks, binding budgets to the OBR, and selling off public assets. It does not show concern for unequal economic distribution.
So, why would a wealth tax help this weakness? It enables us to fix the government’s mistakes.
Since 2009, almost £1 trillion has been issued into the economy through quantitative easing. This was a mistake. Not because furlough, intervention, or an expansion of the money supply is inevitably a bad thing, but because no one in government had the sense to consider the distribution of wealth. Where would this £1 trillion end up?
A quick google of most asset market’s inflation since 2019 has the answer. A wealth tax would at least begin to undo some of the economic distortions caused by recent quantitative easing by reducing asset price inflation.
The revenues might do little to enable significant government investment, or to enable a reduction in income tax. However, it would start to restore hope for Britain’s future by giving regular British people a better chance to own a share of their country. And through property ownership, the people can express their patriotism in the streets once again.
Anakin England is a Digital Communications Officer for the City Hall Conservatives and manages a startup social media page called The New One Nation.
The Conservative party must be open to a wealth tax.
There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that we must look the economic rational in the eye and acknowledge that high rates of wealth inequality have serious economic implications. The second reason is we must acknowledge the importance of accessible property ownership for the soul of our country.
Given I’m arguing for a wealth tax, I must tell you that I do not care how much money any individual has. However, I ask you to accept that there must be a point at which wealth inequality becomes an obvious economic problem.
No matter how hard someone works, we could never justify one person owning 100 per cent of an economy’s wealth. Despite obviously being a totalitarian economy, it is easy to understand how such unequal concentrations of wealth would enable monopoly-like distortions on asset values, interest rates, rents and would end market competition. Reasonably then, there must be a limit on the proportion of wealth held by a minority before it starts to jeopardise normal market function.
At what point then does wealth inequality distort markets. I can’t give you an exact Gini-coefficient. However, it isn’t hard to imagine what it would look like if asset markets were being distorted by wealth inequality and how we could end up at that point.
Imagine someone has £10 million. An amateur today could guarantee a return of at least £225,000 by putting it in a bank account with 2.25 per cent interest for 1 year. If you bought the S&P 500 with that money, you’d have a return of £1.5 million in 1 year given the last decade’s average annual performance plus £115,000 from dividends. Buy property and you’ve got roughly a 4% return given asset value growth since 2020 and an average annual return of £595,000 in rent.
Given these rates of return on assets, how on earth do you convince someone to spend their returns in a productive way. For context, the typical turnover of a business in 2025 which used HMRC’s PAYE system to pay income tax was less than £250,000. As a Conservative, I’d hope the rich would invest in a brand-new business venture, employ hundreds of locals in Middlesbrough, and bring economic growth. Equally, as a Conservative, I’d advise they buy the same assets again next year and save themselves the hassle of running a business.
Now, suppose all rich people continue to buy the assets which made them so much money last year. And suppose these individuals have more than £10 million to spend on these assets. What we’d find is asset prices could be propped up by the profits of the asset owning class themselves.
This means wealth inequality has the potential to dislocate prices from their intended market audience. House prices, for example, could lose their connection to wages as the sheer quantity of money reinvested by the rich could maintain house price increases. Similarly, stock market prices would no longer be an assessment of companies’ long-term viability but instead reflect the confidence of stockholders to realise short-term gains.
But that’s just the economics of inequality. These price dislocations in asset markets would have real social effects. Unconservative effects.
Assets are the physical property of Britain. It’s what we see every day. It’s houses, high-street shops, businesses, places of work, roads, trains, factories, energy, oil and industries. If these assets become dislocated from their intended market audience, it would also separate the physical property of Britain from the people’s spirit.
As property prices are dislocated from wages, wage-earners lose access to the stability of home ownership. Individuals lose the safety net of the home and the security to start a family. Houses would lose their charm as they lack the care and investment of long-term familial occupation.
As REITS acquire highstreets, shopkeepers lose the opportunity to own their stores. Businesses’ rents are extracted overseas, storefronts crumble, footfall falls. Highstreets lose their character as local independent entrepreneurs lose access to affordable retail property.
As entire industries flip from public to private, the value of our heritage and standards is pitted against the cost efficiencies of global markets. Steel goes, textile manufacturing goes, shipbuilding goes. And with them, so does the security and quality of employment alongside so much of our regional heritage.
These British assets, the soul of our nation, become portfolio pieces rather than treasured belongings of the people. The love and pride inherent in the British public loses property ownership as a means of expression.
Privilege entails responsibility. Asset owners have a social responsibility to Great Britain to ensure our country’s pride doesn’t fade. But today the asset owning class are increasingly international, and they don’t have to witness the decline of our assets and feel any concern. They only see the gains in asset values and growing flows of rent, interest, and profit.
And if wealth inequality is allowed to grow without intervention, Britain’s physical properties could drift so far from the British people until we’re left only with soulless shells. Highstreet vacancies, derelict housing, lifeless rentals.
It should be no surprise that when Brits witness this increasingly becoming the reality of our nation, they raise the British Flag. They’re making their identity, and Britain’s value to them, known. They want to express their pride at a time when it hurts to see the physical decay of Britain. The people want to take action.
And this is why an unbending allegiance to neoliberal economics could kill the Conservative party. Neoliberal economics is not a manual for action. It is an ideology centred on reducing government action, giving monetary responsibility to central banks, binding budgets to the OBR, and selling off public assets. It does not show concern for unequal economic distribution.
So, why would a wealth tax help this weakness? It enables us to fix the government’s mistakes.
Since 2009, almost £1 trillion has been issued into the economy through quantitative easing. This was a mistake. Not because furlough, intervention, or an expansion of the money supply is inevitably a bad thing, but because no one in government had the sense to consider the distribution of wealth. Where would this £1 trillion end up?
A quick google of most asset market’s inflation since 2019 has the answer. A wealth tax would at least begin to undo some of the economic distortions caused by recent quantitative easing by reducing asset price inflation.
The revenues might do little to enable significant government investment, or to enable a reduction in income tax. However, it would start to restore hope for Britain’s future by giving regular British people a better chance to own a share of their country. And through property ownership, the people can express their patriotism in the streets once again.