Help Changes to UK tax system

[Scouse]

1. Artificial caps of anything never work, on the income side or the tax side.

Wealth cap. Not tax or income cap. We've never had one, so we can't know.

2. Why 100M? Why not 10M? Why not 1BN? Its completely arbitrary

Yep. I pulled the figure out of my arse. I'm not stuck on it. But the economic damage caused by the super rich to the rest of the world is disgraceful - and worse than an "economic shock" and is socially corrosive. If we want to talk inequality - 31% of all of Russia's massive wealth is owned by 110 people. 110. So, give those 110 people one hundred million pounds each and the rest of the wealth goes to more worthwhile causes than keeping 110 oligarchs in hookers and coke, obscene political power and the rest of Russia down.

3. World government. Not going to happen, and frankly its a terrifying prospect. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

World government, definitiely gonna happen, by hook or by crook.

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

=agree.

As for who watches the watchmen. Who watches the US government, or UK government, eh? The public. That's who. And we do a shit job because we lack the education to be politically involved.

We lack that education to be correctly politically involved because our educational systems are set up to create factory workers and worker drones to be productive for the already rich - not thinking fully aware politically inconvenient independent citizens.

If nobody speaks up for a different system, then it's chances of happening are zero. If you don't even try to idealize it, speak up for it, support the notion of it or at least enter into a rational argument for a better world - i.e. if you defend the status quo as "the best we can expect" - then you don't deserve better.

4. The idea that governments are the best people to decide how most of the money in the world is spent is laughable.

Again, I'm not stuck on that idea. I've said repeatedly in this thread that I'd be happy for the super rich to administer the dissemination of their wealth how they see fit - whether it's a Bill & Melinda Gates-style foundation, educational charities, a massive space company etc. As long as when they die their legacy doesn't go to their children's personal wealth pot, but is for the good of all humankind.

How it's administered is definitely up for grabs. Giant personal wealth isn't, however. Because one thing is for certain @DaGaffer - the state is better at administering wealth than rich people who are uselessly hoarding massive riches only for themselves, to the detriment of all but themselves.

 

[Scouse]

Absolutely, that isn't the point though. You can't criticise people using perfectly legal ways to not pay tax and then do it yourself...well you can but it makes you a massive hypocrite.

I'm criticising the system. I'm saying it's an immoral system. I hold a position on systemic change. I have repeatedly said that no human voluntarily pays extra tax for no reason and you need systemic change.

How many times do I have to repeat that line before you get it Raven? I think your ignorance of my argument is wilful.

 

[DaGaffer]

Wealth cap. Not tax or income cap. We've never had one, so we can't know.

Semantics, a wealth cap can only be managed through a system of taxation. A system that would be incredibly hard to manage since the definition of "wealth" is entirely arbitrary and would be moving around all the time depending on how your assets were calculated.

Yep. I pulled the figure out of my arse. I'm not stuck on it. But the economic damage caused by the super rich to the rest of the world is disgraceful - and worse than an "economic shock" and is socially corrosive. If we want to talk inequality - 31% of all of Russia's massive wealth is owned by 110 people. 110. So, give those 110 people one hundred million pounds each and the rest of the wealth goes to more worthwhile causes than keeping 110 oligarchs in hookers and coke, obscene political power and the rest of Russia down.

Well first of all its widely acknowledged that Russia is pretty much the most unequal country on the planet (other than a few Caribbean tax havens), so your straw man is based on an outlier (billionaires hold 35% of Russia's wealth whereas billionaires hold 1-2% of the RoW's wealth). Do I think Russian Oligarchs ripping off the population is a bad thing? Yes. Do I think its any of my business how Russia wants to run its economy? No. Apparently "the people" (according to you) should be able to sort this out for themselves. Hey, they've had a revolution before, right? When the wealth inequality was actually better. Wonder why they aren't heading for the barricades now...

World government, definitiely gonna happen, by hook or by crook.

=agree.

As for who watches the watchmen. Who watches the US government, or UK government, eh? The public. That's who. And we do a shit job because we lack the education to be politically involved.

We lack that education to be correctly politically involved because our educational systems are set up to create factory workers and worker drones to be productive for the already rich - not thinking fully aware politically inconvenient independent citizens.

If nobody speaks up for a different system, then it's chances of happening are zero. If you don't even try to idealize it, speak up for it, support the notion of it or at least enter into a rational argument for a better world - i.e. if you defend the status quo as "the best we can expect" - then you don't deserve better.

Actually your argument shows that powerful governments aren't to be trusted and yet you're arguing for an even more powerful version? "The Public"'s reward for legitimately protesting against their government's actions is a bit of kettling at best and a bullet in the face at worst. In the European experience at least, small governments have proved to be far more accountable than big ones. Which by the way, means "not very accountable, but better than nothing".

Again, I'm not stuck on that idea. I've said repeatedly in this thread that I'd be happy for the super rich to administer the dissemination of their wealth how they see fit - whether it's a Bill & Melinda Gates-style foundation, educational charities, a massive space company etc. As long as when they die their legacy doesn't go to their children's personal wealth pot, but is for the good of all humankind.

How it's administered is definitely up for grabs. Giant personal wealth isn't, however. Because one thing is for certain @DaGaffer - the state is better at administering wealth than rich people who are uselessly hoarding massive riches only for themselves, to the detriment of all but themselves.

So unelected technocrats or government apparatchiks. That's our choice? And who decides "what's for the good of all mankind?" Because most of mankind will vote for bread and circuses every-fucking-time.

 

[Raven]

And rainbow shitting Unicorns and golden rocket cars.

 

[ileks]

Got the offer! GJ FH.

 

[Embattle]

Congrats.

 

[Scouse]

Got the offer! GJ FH.

Cool. What did you go with?

 

[ileks]

Cool. What did you go with?

Inheritance and corp. tax as Chilly suggested. The earlier suggestion about property taxes lead me to have a good read up on Stamp Duty which was lucky because I was asked about it!

 

[Hawkwind]

congrats

 

[Chilly]

Inheritance and corp. tax as Chilly suggested. The earlier suggestion about property taxes lead me to have a good read up on Stamp Duty which was lucky because I was asked about it!

Chilly in being (surprisingly) useful shocker! Well done.

 

[SilverHood]

Inheritance and corp. tax as Chilly suggested. The earlier suggestion about property taxes lead me to have a good read up on Stamp Duty which was lucky because I was asked about it!

Congrats

 

[Embattle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27356896