Off course I disagree.
You haven't outlined any reasons, you just said meritocratic over and over. That isn't a reason, that doesn't show it's better, it doesn't even show you gain that from IHT.
'Rich Privilege'
- Thread starter SiD the Turtle
- Start date
Off course I disagree.
You haven't outlined any reasons, you just said meritocratic over and over. That isn't a reason, that doesn't show it's better, it doesn't even show you gain that from IHT.
Why?
I'm not sure anyone is blaming the rich for anything (unless they're also BTL landlords
). But a lot of articles have been written on how allowing the gap between rich and poor to widen is damaging to the economy.You're right - it doesn't have to be a death tax. But we do need to have the rich on some kind of leash. Tax rates of up to 80% have been suggested to be beneficial if the health of the economy is your prime goal.
Not by me, by economists.
I agree
Its so every new generation should be better than the last. If we didn't do that we would still be living in mud huts. Mud huts that we had to build ourselves because the generation before weren't allowed to leave us.
It doesn't solve any issue. If it doesn't solve an issue it is pointless and if it doesn't solve an issue there is only one reason for supporting it.
It also has potential to decrease the economy, making everyone living standards worse.
And no in no way do you need 80% or something similar to help the economy. In fact such a tax would debate the economy as more wealth is moved abroad, less wealth to re invest etc.
Should rich pay more off course you can do that through a flat tax and closing loopholes, should you cripple them off course not.
You can also double the tax free allowance, to help the other end.
Last edited:
You just need to look at the state of the French economy to see what happens when a socialist government comes in and starts penalising the rich. That 75% tax on the rich which was suppose to bring balance bought them in an extra €160m in 2014 and a lot of prominent rich French men left the country which has only harmed the economy and crippled further investment. I believe they are dropping that now because it has been a complete and utter failure.
The problem in this country is some people are bred with the mentality of hating people who are better off than them. Bottom line is you need rich people here, they play a huge part in job creation and wealth creation in the country. The more rich there are here the better it will be for others, they aren't going to come here if you start introducing policies to take their money from them.
In principle, for the reasons I've already put forward, I consider it to be an equitable tax. Even if the only effect were to be to reduce taxes elsewhere.
I'm not sure how it would decrease the economy. Surely taxing a transfer of wealth would free up money into the economy (since wealth held, often in property, is not economically active).
And all that besides, if we were to talk of other benefits of it, it may encourage people to not sit on piles of wealth in their dotage - spend and increase domestic demand. There's no real advantage to such hoarding. Might even have a beneficial effect on house prices as elderly people sell up for smaller cheaper homes.
What problem is it solving? Why won't you respond to that.
I don't know little thing it's easy to migrate, buy property abroad etc.
Just like top sports players and rich people already do, to avoid UK tax. The higher the penalties the mire that will move. That means less money not more.
More in the government coffers in no way means a better economy, it in no way means the money goes towards solving issues.
Again no one does sit on their money. so drop that line, why do you keep saying that. Do you really think people just have it stashed in a mattress rather than being invested in one thing or another.
I am doing 'OK' but am happy for people around me to be rich. Good luck to them. Indeed I want to be surrounded by well off people to give me motivation to achieve more. If everyone is poor then aspirations will be poor. If some people are rich it should improve your aspiration to achieve it too.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
You seem to have had a change of heart.
Tha post was 4 years ago, so yes, I have.
So we're looking at rich people from which the economy benefits in various ways, instead of looking at the people who are fully able to work but can't be bothered as it's easier to be lazy and do nothing all day while having the state paying for their living...
I have no idea about numbers but I bet there are tens of thousands of people in the UK that haven't worked in years while they are completely able to do so...why not do something about that?! How much money do you think that would "save"?
If anyone is under the impression that governments rule the world...funny...no, very rich and powerful people rule it, and that's never going to change.
I have no idea about numbers but I bet there are tens of thousands of people in the UK that haven't worked in years while they are completely able to do so...why not do something about that?! How much money do you think that would "save"?
If anyone is under the impression that governments rule the world...funny...no, very rich and powerful people rule it, and that's never going to change.
Good question, please go and ask them.
I'm not sure anyone is blaming the rich for anything (unless they're also BTL landlords
You're right - it doesn't have to be a death tax. But we do need to have the rich on some kind of leash. Tax rates of up to 80% have been suggested to be beneficial if the health of the economy is your prime goal.
Not by me, by economists.
We have to have the rich on a leash? Penalise people for being successful, so mediocre people can feel better about being less successful? The people who generally create jobs for less successful people to work in?
The reason a rich and poor divide exists is because people are not equal in terms of ability. People are more intelligent than others, more entrepreneurial, they have drive and desire to achieve their ambitions. Many people don't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
Success I am all in favour of.
But I have seen first hand that children of successful parents seemed to gain rather good jobs in firms their parents had a hand in or work for.
I choose to look at it as better opportunities, and they were good employee's and got the job done well.
But it always makes me wonder just how well they would have done without the rather obvious leg up the ladder.
The fact you even think and worry about that kind of thing speaks volumes.
Exactly. A refuge collector could sprint between bins as quick as U. Bolt and do 100 hours a week, but he'll still earn less than a banker doing half as many hours.
I agree that success often breeds success.
Cos you rich, blud.
a fairer system would be if everyone earned exactly the same wage and exactly the same tax ?
It's only unfair as long as you are the one better off?
everyone being equal would not work so some people have to pay more so some people can earn less
you earn an unfair proportion of money you pay an unfair portion of tax
Last edited:
Equality? Why should there be equality when not everyone puts in an equal effort?
Might as well start saying everyone should be paid the same regardless of job.
Everyone has the same free education available to them which enables people to gain the skills they need to do whatever they want to do. Squander that opportunity and you have only yourself to blame.
But yes. Taxing the rich more and more will make poor peoples lives better. Some fantasy land that is.
Like I said before. Smacking the prettiest girl in the face with an iron doesn't make the ugly girls prettier. Might make them feel a bit better but it changes nothing for them.
Last edited: