- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 3716 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
84 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 69249
Some time ago I came up with the idea of abolishing or massively reducing most of the taxes collected by the government with the exception of one tax, inheritance tax, which I advocated being raised to 100% with no exemptions or minimum threshold. I posted the idea online (it might have been here) and was ridiculed.
Now I am back, having investigated the matter thoroughly and done a lot of number-crunching and I am here to make the case again. Although the primary motivation for my argument is a moral one, the numbers themselves actually do make sense and we would see a net gain to the tax revenue collected each year.
The plan is simple: Close all loopholes regarding inheritance tax, then raise it to 100% but allow people who jointly own a property to have first-refusal on purchasing it back from the government in the event of the other owner's death (providing they have the money or can get a mortgage). This would apply to any and all possessions including personal chattels meaning you will have to pay the government a few grand to keep your telly, furniture and the like if your wife dies.
Why is this a good idea?
1. It completely and permanently removes every single living person from the tax system forever, freeing them up to do what they please with 100% of the money they earn. Whether you think this is a good thing because you believe people should own the fruits of their own labour or you think it's a good thing because it incentivises people to earn money there is not really anywhere you can sit on the political spectrum and disagree with this.
2. It encourages wealthy individuals from all across the world to base themselves in Britain, creating employment opportunities and of course giving our treasury a shit ton of money when they die. Everybody dies and it's not the sort of thing you can really keep quiet so there's not really any way for people to evade it. If every billionaire on Earth moves significant assets here due to the fact that they don't have to pay any tax we will be drowning in money forever.
3. Morally there is no way to justify someone owning what they did not earn. As with point 1, wherever one sits on the political spectrum they at least pretend to agree with this. Even the die-hard supercapitalists who want to create a libertarian free-market utopia claim that their ideology is based upon wanting people to make their own way in the world and not "rely on others for hand-outs".
Just imagine the paradise we would live in. No income tax, no VAT, no looking over your shoulder to see if the taxman is watching you, but all without having to make even a single cut to any public service. Absolute heaven and it's achievable right now, today, here in Britain in 2016. Why isn't anyone making this happen?
|>>|| No. 69590
Lad. You pulled some figures from your arse. I divided one by the other and showed it contradicted your earlier assertion. QED bitch.
|>>|| No. 69591
>your earlier assertion
Again, no. There's no need to get quite so upset about it, though.
|>>|| No. 69592
Settle down, ladies. Kim Jong Un is threatening to bomb America in the next few weeks. We've got a war to plan.
|>>|| No. 69594
Well that's good news. Maybe when he's dropped his load IYKWIM we can finally finish those bloody seppos.
|>>|| No. 69633
It's pretty average for a moderately experienced professional. Obviously it's going to seem above average when you compare with the great unskilled hordes.
|>>|| No. 69707
>Are you seriously suggesting that if a property isn't worth at least a million it will be nothing more than a basement flat on the wrong side of town? I think you might be confusing London for the norm rather than the exception.
People still need to live in London.
|>>|| No. 69713
So our capital city should just become a ghost town devoid of all life other than tourists and multi-millionaires? Who will collect the rubbish? Who will wait tables and wash dishes? Who will run the souvenir stalls? Who will staff the brothels? Who will clean the theatres and guard the museums at night? Elves?
|>>|| No. 69717
You're looking at this in a very black and white way. There is a middle-ground between 'earns mininimum wage' and 'is a millionaire' believe it or not.
But anyway, I'm not arguing against having more affordable property in London (i.e. I'm not >>69712), just that it's important to recognise it isn't at all representative of the vast majority of the country.
|>>|| No. 69720
Maybe you're having difficulty handling multiple parallel ideas in a single thread but never was it asserted that 50k represented a median salary for the entire population.
|>>|| No. 69779
HUH? HUH? HUH?
Who said anything about 'should' anyway? I don't live in Virginia Waters because its too expensive for me. I don't live in London or Cambridge for the same reason.
People need to live somewhere but the somewhere does not need people to live there mate.
|>>|| No. 69782
If we were talking about Milton Keynes or Scarborough I'd agree with you but this is London, our capital, the capital of any country under any system in history has always needed a ready supply of slave-labour to keep the elites free to manage the foreign office. Slaves in London in 2016 are being priced out of slavery.
|>>|| No. 69786
I don't care if it's the capital or not.
London is actually Westminster anyway, historical autism.
|>>|| No. 69990
I can't really see any argument against this idea that doesn't boil down to "I deserve to get a load of money for free".
|>>|| No. 69991
You see, you are still thinking on an individualistic level. Most people would rather their own flesh and blood (or at least a charity of their choosing) benefit from their life's work than some random Johnnie.
|>>|| No. 69997
I would rather that I got to spend my Monday afternoon having sex with various beautiful women and lounging by the pool of my mansion on my private tropical island than sitting in an office answering phones and discussing inheritance tax with some random Johnnie on an anonymous imageboard.
Unfortunately, we cannot always get what we want.
|>>|| No. 69998
Also most of the people who live the life I described inherited their wealth and have done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
|>>|| No. 70193
please refer to >>69713
'places don't need people'
why do you think that london is a bustling centre of global trade, as opposed to, say, pompeii?
it's the people, you mongo
the problem with london is now, it's not just the cleaners and the mcdonalds workers who can't afford to live there, but doctors and office managers, nurses and teachers. on average londoners spend 75% of their income on housing. london's the biggest city in the world not to have /some/ kind of control on rent increases. it's the classic british 'stop complaining' attitude that's allowed our property market to become so beholden to people who buy into london solely because they want an inflation-beating investment, or possibly just wash some dirty money in a no-questions asked jurisdiction
and have no desire to come here and contribute to any other sector of the economy. these are the 'economic migrants' we should be getting our teeth into
|>>|| No. 70196
On one hand, I want to agree with you. On the other, you clearly can't write for toffee.
|>>|| No. 70218
Or let them do it because the treasury will be quid's in when they die and 100% of their assets are taken under the new inheritance tax law.
|>>|| No. 70271
Assuming the maths isn't completely made up I think this idea could be worth looking at. It would never actually go anywhere though, people are quite literally willing to die for their right to get money for absolutely nothing.
|>>|| No. 70272
>>I posted the idea online (it might have been here) and was ridiculed.
There is a reason for the ridicule. You are proposing something which is on the same intellectual tier as the freemen nutters.
|>>|| No. 70279
The difference is that the idea would work and so is not comparable at all to eccentric weirdos who think 12th century common law excuses them from needing car insurance
|>>|| No. 75004
Every single even vaguely successful person who cares more about their children than abstract political ideals will abandon your fictional state until it's just you and Corbs making awkward conversation while gathering firewood.
Why does this thread have over 100 replies?
|>>|| No. 75007
If there was 100% inheritance tax, people would just sign over their estates earlier than they currently do to avoid it.
Babies born with their names on mortgages, madness.
|>>|| No. 75008
>If there was 100% inheritance tax, people would just sign over their estates earlier than they currently do to avoid it
... and presumably would be prosecuted for attempting to avoid tax using some analogue to the similar rules that exist for companies.
|>>|| No. 75010
Perhaps this is a way for whatever bits of the U.K are left after Brexit to bounce back from financial ruin.
|>>|| No. 75015
Tax avoidance isn't illegal, tax evasion is. Quite an important difference.
|>>|| No. 75017
>Just imagine the paradise we would live in. No income tax, no VAT
No money back, no guarantees.
|>>|| No. 75018
You're (mis)applying current terminology to a hypothetical scenario. Go hang your head in shame.
|>>|| No. 75023
Which part of this hypothetical scenario said about making tax avoidance illegal? Then again given the preschool level of understanding shown by the OP it wouldn't surprise me.
|>>|| No. 75041
So you want to take money YOU didn't earn then decide who the beneficiaries will be? ...kind of a step up from the tenuous immorality of inheritance.
So thats home and all things of value?
...Leading slowly to Complete control by the government. Sure would like to be the nepotist in office handling where that money goes. Maybe Ken can slush some of it off to buy votes (again)
|>>|| No. 75043
>So you want to take money YOU didn't earn then decide who the beneficiaries will be?
This is literally what all tax is.
|>>|| No. 75046
On the upside, it's the only tax you'd ever have to pay, given we could afford to abolish pretty much everything else, and you wouldn't have to worry about passing on the house because the high turnover means that property would be much more affordable.
|>>|| No. 81964
This is the root reason first world countries need to bring back capital controls across the board.
Having a wealthy class capable of (a) strongly influencing how the world economy is run and (b) not tied to any particular country, capable of eloping with relative ease if things go all 1917 is a recipe for disaster.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]