[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 69249)
Message
File  []
close
erwewer.jpg
692496924969249
>> No. 69249 Anonymous
17th February 2016
Wednesday 12:49 pm
69249 100% Inheritance Tax
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?
84 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 69590 Anonymous
23rd February 2016
Tuesday 6:54 pm
69590 spacer
>>69589
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 Anonymous
23rd February 2016
Tuesday 6:58 pm
69591 spacer
>>69590
>your earlier assertion
Again, no. There's no need to get quite so upset about it, though.
>> No. 69592 Anonymous
23rd February 2016
Tuesday 7:11 pm
69592 spacer
>>69590
>>69591

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 Anonymous
23rd February 2016
Tuesday 7:33 pm
69594 spacer
>>69592
Well that's good news. Maybe when he's dropped his load IYKWIM we can finally finish those bloody seppos.
>> No. 69595 Anonymous
23rd February 2016
Tuesday 9:22 pm
69595 spacer
>>69583

50k is the top 10% of earners, that isn't average.
>> No. 69616 Anonymous
24th February 2016
Wednesday 2:47 am
69616 spacer
>>69595
Who said anything about average?
>> No. 69618 Anonymous
24th February 2016
Wednesday 3:29 am
69618 spacer
>>69616
>>69575, >>69585 and>>69586.
>> No. 69633 Anonymous
24th February 2016
Wednesday 7:10 pm
69633 spacer
>>69595
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. 69634 Anonymous
24th February 2016
Wednesday 7:16 pm
69634 spacer
>>69633
Can you leave the goalposts alone, lad?
>> No. 69707 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 12:58 pm
69707 spacer
>>69586
>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. 69712 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 1:39 pm
69712 spacer
>>69707
No they don't.
>> No. 69713 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 2:51 pm
69713 spacer
>>69712
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 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 5:27 pm
69717 spacer
>>69713
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 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 5:36 pm
69720 spacer
>>69618
>>69634
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. 69729 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 6:57 pm
69729 spacer
>>69720
That's a cunt's trick and you know it.
>> No. 69779 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 4:01 pm
69779 spacer
>>69713
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 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 4:34 pm
69782 spacer
>>69779
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 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 5:48 pm
69786 spacer
>>69782
I don't care if it's the capital or not.

London is actually Westminster anyway, historical autism.
>> No. 69787 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 5:51 pm
69787 spacer
>>69786
Notice how there's no Eastminster? Eh? Fuckin' Illuminati man.
>> No. 69981 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 9:04 am
69981 spacer
Please can I have a girl like that?
>> No. 69990 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 12:12 pm
69990 spacer
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 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 1:01 pm
69991 spacer
>>69990
>I deserve

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. 69994 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 1:29 pm
69994 spacer
>>69991
"My kids deserve free money" is no better.
>> No. 69997 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 1:51 pm
69997 spacer
>>69991
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 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 1:53 pm
69998 spacer
>>69997
Also most of the people who live the life I described inherited their wealth and have done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
>> No. 70193 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 5:08 pm
70193 spacer
>>69779
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 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 5:15 pm
70196 spacer
>>70193
On one hand, I want to agree with you. On the other, you clearly can't write for toffee.
>> No. 70203 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 5:54 pm
70203 spacer
>>70193
Your logic is circular.
>> No. 70218 Anonymous
17th March 2016
Thursday 10:24 am
70218 spacer
>>70193
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 Anonymous
21st March 2016
Monday 5:38 pm
70271 spacer
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 Anonymous
21st March 2016
Monday 5:53 pm
70272 spacer
>>69249
>>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 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 8:26 am
70279 spacer
>>70272
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. 70450 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 2:43 pm
70450 spacer
>>70279
>Well it was made a very long time ago.

For fuck's sake.
>> No. 75002 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 12:30 pm
75002 spacer
>>70193
This is insane.
>> No. 75004 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 1:19 pm
75004 spacer
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. 75005 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 1:27 pm
75005 spacer
>>75002
>>75004
Thanks lads, those replies were well worth the three-month wait.
>> No. 75007 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 2:06 pm
75007 spacer
>>75005

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 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 2:15 pm
75008 spacer
>>75007
>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 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 2:52 pm
75010 spacer
>>75005
Perhaps this is a way for whatever bits of the U.K are left after Brexit to bounce back from financial ruin.
>> No. 75015 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 4:42 pm
75015 spacer
>>75008
Tax avoidance isn't illegal, tax evasion is. Quite an important difference.
>> No. 75016 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 5:01 pm
75016 spacer
>>75015

We already have rules for this. Gifts of more than £3,000 given within seven years of death are liable for inheritance tax on a sliding scale.

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
>> No. 75017 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 5:39 pm
75017 spacer
>Just imagine the paradise we would live in. No income tax, no VAT

No money back, no guarantees.
>> No. 75018 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 5:52 pm
75018 spacer
>>75015
You're (mis)applying current terminology to a hypothetical scenario. Go hang your head in shame.
>> No. 75023 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 7:55 pm
75023 spacer
>>75018
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. 75024 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 7:57 pm
75024 spacer
>>75023
>preschool level of understanding
Bit rich coming from the poster of >>75015.
>> No. 75041 Anonymous
2nd July 2016
Saturday 5:34 am
75041 spacer
>>69249

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.
100% tax!
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 Anonymous
2nd July 2016
Saturday 5:50 am
75043 spacer
>>75041
>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 Anonymous
2nd July 2016
Saturday 11:06 am
75046 spacer
>>75041
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. 81963 Anonymous
20th March 2017
Monday 3:33 am
81963 spacer
>>75004
>abandon the country

To go where, pray tell?
>> No. 81964 Anonymous
20th March 2017
Monday 3:52 am
81964 spacer
>>75004
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 ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password