by Anne Strickland, researcher
The Green Party’s election of Zack Polanski as leader with 85 per cent of the vote marks a shift toward what he calls “eco-populism.”: a mix of radical environmentalism, economic redistribution, and hard-line identity politics. He has called for sweeping wealth taxes, vast increases in public spending, and has aligned himself with activist causes on issues ranging from Gaza to anti-capitalist climate protests. His rhetoric is deliberately confrontational, casting Britain’s economic challenges as a battle between ordinary people and “billionaires with yachts.” Beneath the slogans and the theatrics lies a fundamental misunderstanding of Britain’s fiscal reality and a recipe for economic decline.
On Politics Live (3 September), Polanski declared: “We need to tax wealth, not work. What we should be doing is putting a wealth tax on assets at 1 per cent, to raise billions of pounds.” His promise that "we will invest in our NHS" follows the well-worn political playbook of promising increased spending without addressing underlying structural issues. It’s an easy applause line, but it ignores reality.
The department for health and social care’s budget in 2024-25 was £204.9 billion, with total UK health spending approaching 11 per cent of GDP. This represents a substantial real-terms increase over recent decades. Yet despite this increased funding, productivity and outcomes have not improved proportionally. The problem isn't insufficient resources; it's how those resources are deployed within an increasingly inefficient system.
With the UK's tax burden already set to reach 37.7 per cent of GDP by 2027/28, the highest level since records began in 1948, simply throwing more taxpayer money at problems without structural reform delivers diminishing returns while imposing ever-greater burdens on working families.
Central to Polanski's platform is implementing a wealth tax, heavily supported by Gary Stevenson, whose YouTube channel "GarysEconomics" has gained significant traction. Stevenson, who claims to have been "Citibank's most profitable trader globally in 2011" (disputed by eight former colleagues in a 2024 Financial Times investigation), advocates for wealth taxes without acknowledging their consistent international failure.
France's wealth tax provides the starkest warning. Implemented from 1982 to 2017, it drove an estimated 60,000 wealthy residents abroad between 2000 and 2016, taking jobs, investment, and tax receipts with them. It has been estimated that the implementation of the wealth tax cost France double what had been received through the levy.
Similar patterns emerged across Europe. Twelve European countries had wealth taxes in 1990: by 2017, only three remained.
Proponents of wealth taxes consistently ignore Britain's already highly progressive tax system. According to HMRC data for 2022-23:
- The top 1 per cent of income taxpayers contribute 28.5 per cent of all income tax revenue
- The top 10 per cent contribute 60.3 per cent of all income tax revenue
- To be in the top 10 per cent requires a pre-tax income of around £70,000, hardly "super-rich" territory
This concentration has increased dramatically. In 2000-01, the top 1 per cent paid 21 per cent of income tax; now it's 28.5 per cent. The top 10 per cent has risen from 40 per cent to over 60 per cent.
Taking all household taxes into account, the top 10 per cent pay 34 per cent of the total burden, almost certainly underestimated since this excludes inheritance tax and capital gains tax, which disproportionately affect higher earners.
The recent exodus of non-domiciled taxpayers offers a preview of what wealth taxes would deliver. These individuals brought substantial economic activity, employment, and investment beyond their direct tax contributions. Their departure following tax changes represents permanent tax base erosion that ideological posturing cannot recover.
Government receipts hit record levels in 2024-25, £1,139 billion, driven by existing high tax burdens. The economy already demonstrates the limits of tax extraction, with real household disposable income to grow by an average of around half a per cent a year from 2025-26 to 2029-30.
Public spending is forecast to remain at 44–45 per cent of GDP throughout the decade – five points above pre-pandemic levels, and the longest sustained period of high spending since World War II. National debt is £2.7 trillion. Meanwhile, frozen thresholds are dragging millions into higher tax bands. The OBR forecasts that fiscal drag will raise £38 billion by 2029–30, a stealth tax hammering ordinary families.
The wealthy are already paying disproportionately. Push them further, and they will simply leave. The consequence is less revenue, not more.
Polanski's victory coincides with Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's formation of a new left-wing party. Polls suggest up to 20 per cent would consider voting for it, while the Greens linger at 10 per cent. Fragmentation of the left may shift votes around, but it won’t produce serious policy, only more unrealistic promises.
Whether under Corbyn or Polanski, the left’s prescription is the same: drain the rich, borrow more, and grow the state. None of it will work.
Rather than pursuing economically destructive wealth taxes and endless spending pledges, Britain needs a return to fiscal discipline:
- Spending restraint: Cut the size of government to allow space for real tax relief.
- Efficient taxation: Simplify the current system, close loopholes, and keep rates competitive.
- Public service reform: Improve outcomes through structural change, not more money wasted on bureaucracy.
-
Regulatory streamlining: Reduce business costs and encourage private sector growth.
Polanski’s “eco-populism” may play well with voters angry at the cost of living, but it is pure economic fantasy. His talk of fighting “billionaires and their yachts” ignores the fact that these individuals already fund a huge share of Britain’s public spending and can relocate with ease.
The Green Party's new economic agenda represents everything that's wrong with contemporary political discourse: grand spending promises funded by other people's money, with no consideration of real-world constraints or unintended consequences. In a country already facing the highest tax burden since World War II, such eco-populism isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous.