I’d vote for 90% IHT with super tight laws on loopholes and dodges, but lowish income taxes.
"As it stands, IHT currently accounts for 0.25% of GDP. Income tax, capital gains and NI together are 16.8% of GDP" - SeanKenny
Because I believe in both ideas - freedom to create, earn, save and invest tax-efficiently in life, and high death duties when you’re gone so as not to perpetuate inequality.
But to make a fundamental difference this would have to be close to a 100% wealth tax with no loopholes whatsoever. Something which is never realistically going to happen in this country short of a revolution.
You say you want to reduce inequality, but would prefer to do that by increasing death duties. Fair enough - I don’t necessarily disagree. But to make a fundamental difference this would have to be close to a 100% wealth tax with no loopholes whatsoever. Something which is never realistically going to happen in this country short of a revolution. And you must know that.But in the absence of that you think pushing more wealth into the hands of the top few % is a step in the right direction?! This is bonkers.
It isn't a zero-sum game, I don't understand why you appear to think it is? For someone to be doing well it doesn't depend on you doing badly.
Redistribution from wages beyond a certain point, which we're virtually at imo, is also unrealistic. Who'd vote for it, who'd bother working beyond a certain wage, there's no incentives. So you'd need to go full communist and force people. It'd be completely shit way to live, and the services would still be crap!
Quote from: petejh on March 17, 2023, 10:56:27 pm Redistribution from wages beyond a certain point, which we're virtually at imo, is also unrealistic. Who'd vote for it, who'd bother working beyond a certain wage, there's no incentives. So you'd need to go full communist and force people. It'd be completely shit way to live, and the services would still be crap!I disagree that it’s unrealistic. [Hypothetically speaking for a minute] If you took away the strong influence of the likes of the Daily Mail, Telegraph, right-wing think tanks/lobby groups churning out its anti-redistribution agenda. Plus you removed all culture war distraction bollocks from the debate. And had a more representative voting system, possibly coupled with mandatory voting. Then I think you could have a proper debate about this stuff, and I’m confident you’d find most voters would support a fairer system of redistribution in life through taxation.
the free representation of the views of all the people who don't agree with it.
There’s just not enough money to raised via inheritance tax for it to have a central role in funding the state - so that last paragraph is just a fantasy.
Quote from: petejh on March 18, 2023, 11:02:29 amthe free representation of the views of all the people who don't agree with it.Pretty poor take; 'all the people who don't agree with it' being the ultra-rich media barons who own the press?I think it'd be pretty hard to argue against the role that the right-wing media and associated sketchy think tanks and their insidious rhetoric has on influencing public opinion.
Quote from: warmonke on March 18, 2023, 12:08:21 pmQuote from: petejh on March 18, 2023, 11:02:29 amthe free representation of the views of all the people who don't agree with it.Pretty poor take; 'all the people who don't agree with it' being the ultra-rich media barons who own the press?I think it'd be pretty hard to argue against the role that the right-wing media and associated sketchy think tanks and their insidious rhetoric has on influencing public opinion.I agree with Pete on this. As much as you may not like it, the right wing press is a representation of people's views as much as it is an influence on them. The Daily Mail doesn't sell newspapers to people who don't agree with what they say.The vast majority of people are compassionate and kind to those they know and care about. A lot of people, enough to significantly influence national politics (most or nearly most?), don't care very much at all about people who they don't know or who they feel are "other" to them. I think you have to understand and accept that if you want to understand people's political views without leaning on conspiracy theories about how a few individuals mind-control millions of people via the free press.
It doesn’t do away with the need for earnings taxes. It just theoretically makes it possible to encourage both individual enterprise and redistribution.