Spreading the muck
Key themes from our roundtable with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on tackling wealth inequality through asset-based welfare and wealth taxation
“Money is like muck, not good unless spread”, said Sir Francis Bacon exactly 400 years ago. An increasing body of evidence shows how high levels of wealth inequality in 21st century Britain are damaging our society, economy, democracy and environment.
Ahead of the autumn budget, the pressure on the Chancellor to generate additional revenue by taxing wealth remains high. But redistributing wealth through the tax system is only one route to spreading wealth more fairly across society, and any revenues generated by additional taxes on wealth may well be absorbed by short-term fiscal pressures or redirected toward other priorities. What about the other side of the coin, the ‘asset agenda’? Wealth taxes typically focus on curbing the concentration of extreme wealth, while asset-based approaches seek to boost financial security among those with little or no wealth. Can these two approaches be brought together into a coherent and compelling strategy to address wealth inequality?
To discuss these issues, the Fairness Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation brought together a group of leading researchers, campaigners, and policy thinkers in July. The discussion focused on the UK’s entrenched wealth inequality, the institutional and political obstacles to reform, and the strategic framing needed to build a more equitable economic settlement. Participants agreed that while there is growing momentum behind wealth tax advocacy, delivering meaningful change requires a long-term shift in economic narratives, political coalitions, and policy infrastructure. Here is a summary of the discussion by Jack Jeffrey, Senior Researcher at the Fairness Foundation.
Key takeaways
Wealth inequality in the UK is not only an economic issue but a democratic one. Tackling it effectively will require structural reform — of fiscal policy, political narratives, and the institutions that shape ownership and opportunity.
Asset-based welfare initiatives like the Child Trust Fund have exposed both the possibilities and the limits of modest endowments in addressing deep wealth stratification. While their impact has been limited, the questions they raise – about who owns wealth, and how it should be distributed – are vital, and connect directly to the case for wealth taxation and broader reform.
The barriers to change are real but not immovable. Public attachment to housing wealth, the influence of elite interests, and the institutional caution of the Treasury and Office for Budget Responsibility all constrain progress, but these forces can be challenged through sustained political pressure, narrative shift, and coalition-building.
To make the case for reform compelling, advocates must develop narratives that speak to core values: linking freedom, fairness, and intergenerational justice to a renewed sense of democratic ownership and economic security.
Achieving a fairer distribution of wealth will not happen overnight. But by building long-term alliances, sharpening public messaging, and embedding reform in a wider project of democratic renewal, it is possible to lay the foundations for a more equal and resilient economic settlement.
Framing the challenge
The UK has one of the highest levels of absolute wealth inequality in the developed world, second only to the United States. The wealth-to-income ratio has doubled since the 1970s, while public ownership of national wealth has collapsed from 30% to just 10%. Meanwhile, the bottom half of the population holds a vanishingly small share of wealth and has virtually no stake in how the economy is run. This extreme imbalance is not simply a matter of inequality but is also problematic in terms of power, resilience, and democratic legitimacy.
Much of today’s wealth is inherited (around 60% in the UK), reinforcing past privilege rather than rewarding productive activity. Despite the rhetoric of “wealth creators,” the economic boom in private wealth has not delivered higher growth; instead, it has coincided with low productivity, underinvestment, and asset inflation.
Two broad strategies have been attempted over the past century. One was the bipartisan idea of a property-owning democracy, but share ownership has collapsed and homeownership is falling. The second was Labour’s post-1945 settlement – built around public ownership and a universal welfare state – but this too has eroded. The current system of wealth accumulation is no longer fit for purpose, and we need new institutional models to address both the concentration and distribution of wealth.
From modest stakes to big questions
Policies like the Child Trust Fund were an early and significant attempt to address wealth inequality by giving every child a modest financial stake – a kind of citizen’s inheritance. These initiatives helped reframe wealth not simply as a matter of private accumulation, but as something that could and should be distributed more equally as a condition of democratic opportunity. By raising the question of who owns wealth – and what that ownership confers – they offered a valuable entry point into broader debates about inequality and economic justice.
The promise of such schemes lay in their potential to counter inherited advantage, expand economic agency, and foster a politics of intergenerational fairness. Framed effectively, asset-based policies can speak to widely shared values: fairness, freedom, and investment in people’s futures.
Yet the limitations of the Child Trust Fund are just as revealing as its ambitions. In practice, its impact was modest. Average payouts were small – often under £2,000 – and eroded by asset inflation. The policy drifted from its original radical intent, becoming a savings scheme shaped by Treasury orthodoxy and reliant on parental contributions, reinforcing some of the inequalities that it aimed to challenge.
The deeper problem is that schemes like the Child Trust Fund have rarely been embedded within a broader programme of structural reform. Without action on housing, inheritance taxation, and the inflationary dynamics of the asset economy, small endowments alone cannot shift entrenched inequalities. Equally important is the parallel decline in public, shared wealth – a trend that asset-based welfare must reckon with also.
Ultimately, the provocation of the Child Trust Fund lies in the questions it raises: what kind of society do we want to build, how should wealth be shared, and what forms of ownership and participation should underpin our economy? From this starting point, some participants argued for more ambitious collective models – particularly the idea of a Citizens’ Wealth Fund. Originally advanced by the economist James Meade, the concept envisions a fund created by the state but owned by the people, with returns distributed either as universal dividends or as investment in public services.
Citizens’ Wealth Funds have real-world precedents. Sweden’s wage-earner funds, although eventually dismantled, collectively came to own around 7% of the Swedish economy. More enduring examples include Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which uses oil revenues to pay out annual cash dividends to all residents, and Shetland’s oil-funded trust, established in the 1980s, which now manages a fund worth hundreds of millions of pounds for the benefit of its local population.
Such models represent a meaningful alternative to concentrated private wealth: a shift from private affluence and public squalor toward shared investment in long-term security, opportunity, and democratic ownership. They offer a compelling vision of wealth as something collectively stewarded – and a concrete institutional mechanism for gradually rebuilding public assets in an era of inequality and extraction.
Barriers to change
The roundtable identified a number of structural and political obstacles that continue to frustrate efforts to advance wealth reform and asset-based policies. One major challenge lies in the prevailing political culture. There remains a deep public attachment to inherited housing wealth, even among those who would not be directly affected by reform. Inheritance tax, despite its limited scope, is widely perceived as unfair – a perception that has made policymakers hesitant to engage seriously with the issue. That said, there is a growing expert consensus and political support on issues such as equalising tax rates on capital gains with those on income from work.
Institutionally, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility continue to express scepticism about the revenue potential and feasibility of wealth taxes. Without official recognition or credible fiscal scoring, such proposals struggle to gain policy traction. This institutional caution reflects a broader orthodoxy that tends to treat the current distribution of wealth as a given, rather than as a problem to be addressed.
At the level of economic structure, participants highlighted how monetary and planning systems continue to drive asset inflation while restricting the supply of genuinely affordable housing. Underpinning this is a deeper democratic deficit: the institutions that shape economic policy, particularly in relation to assets and ownership, often operate without meaningful public input or accountability. Reform, many argued, must therefore go beyond redistribution to reimagine how economic decisions are made and who has a say in them.
Finally, any serious attempt at wealth reform must confront the reality of organised opposition. The so-called wealth defence industry – encompassing wealth management advisors, financial lobbyists, legal firms, accountants and elite media – is both well-resourced and ideologically committed to maintaining the status quo. Campaigners must not only contend with this entrenched resistance but also build resilient public support that can endure beyond short-term political cycles.
Making the case for wealth reform
A central theme of the discussion was how best to communicate and campaign for meaningful wealth reform. Participants explored a range of strategic framings that could help shift public attitudes and build support. One approach focused on portraying extreme wealth – particularly unproductive or inherited assets – as “dead money”: idle resources that could be put to use funding public services or productive investment. This framing challenges the idea of passive wealth as benign and instead positions it as a missed opportunity for the wider economy.
Another proposed frame centred on intergenerational justice. With younger generations increasingly locked out of asset ownership, there is a growing yet under-leveraged political constituency whose economic frustrations could be channelled into support for reform. Linking wealth taxation to their future security could help generate broader political traction.
Some contributors emphasised the importance of moral and political language rooted in freedom and power. Excessive wealth, they argued, can lead to domination, while a lack of assets breeds dependence and insecurity. Framing reform around the idea of a “wealth floor and wealth ceiling” aligns with democratic values – promising both protection from deprivation and limits on undue influence.
Others proposed grounding the case for reform in solidarity and security. Hypothecating revenue from wealth taxes for specific public priorities – such as childcare, education, care, or climate resilience – could enhance political legitimacy and public trust. Some drew comparisons with the German reunification levy, suggesting that framing wealth reform as a collective national investment may help secure broader backing.
There was also debate about the risks of earmarking funds in this way. While some saw hypothecation as a useful tactic to strengthen public support and reduce perceived risk, others warned that it could backfire if trust in government delivery is low or if expectations are not met. The discussion underscored that building an effective narrative for wealth reform will require not just the right policy design, but a careful balancing of ambition, credibility, and public resonance.
Seizing the moment
The political context for wealth reform is shifting. Mounting fiscal pressures, cuts to public services, and a growing public appetite for tax reform are opening up space to make the case for wealth taxes. Yet governments remain cautious, wary of electoral backlash and the entrenched resistance of powerful interests.
In the short term, opportunities lie in coordinating campaigns around key fiscal moments, sharpening public messaging around fairness, and using high-profile cases of elite enrichment to challenge the legitimacy of extreme wealth. Strategic polling, strong spokespeople, and targeted briefs can also help influence decision-makers and shape public debate.
Over the longer term, lasting change will require building broad alliances to reframe how wealth is understood and governed. That means designing policies that are not only technically sound but also compelling and rooted in a wider vision of economic democracy. Linking wealth taxation to institutional reform and the renewal of public ownership will be essential.
While participants recognised that building a new wealth settlement will require sustained effort over time – much like the NHS or the minimum wage – there was also a shared sense that certain shifts could be achieved more rapidly. Fiscal pressures, public frustration with inequality, and growing support for tax reform create openings that must be seized. A long-term horizon remains essential: one that steadily expands public wealth, curbs the dominance of extreme private fortunes, and embeds a new common sense around shared economic power.
With thanks to Frank Soodeen at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for hosting the roundtable, to Stewart Lansley and Fariya Mohiuddin for introducing the two issues under discussion, and to all of the participants for their contributions.
PS, from Will - I’m delighted to have been invited onto Sarah Kerr’s excellent podcast, Antisocial Economics, to talk about what people think about wealth inequality - you can listen to this episode and others in the series here.