Equal is Unfair

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

What do you mean, "back to the public pot"?

I just love the sense of entitlement to other people's stuff.

Ownership is a concept that tends to be defined by people who already have lots of stuff. Surely we can challenge that concept......or at least tinker with the rules a bit.

Moby

economic wrote: »

Lets say there was a 100% IHT. Lets even say its not even possible for the rich to get around it. This means businesses would go to the public once the owner dies. It can not be passed onto children. So we have the mother of all taxes.

What incentive would a business owner have in growing the business if he knows the itll all be taxed away and cant be passed as gifts? What is the point of him working hard to grow it. Why not just shut down the shop, fire all his employees, stop producing and just consume all the wealth before he dies. Also he would tell his kids, hey sons dont bother setting up a business itll be all for nothing as itll be taxed on death anyway. just do a simple 9-5 government job as thats where all the money is nowadays. you wont add any value to the world but at least youll have a nice time consuming other peoples wealth.

The incentive would be the good of the community of course. A strange idea for many on here I'd imagine who judging by the comments above would rather spend their lives hoarding their wealth but as they say there are no pockets in shrouds;)

economic

Moby wrote: »

Ownership is a concept that tends to be defined by people who already have lots of stuff. Surely we can challenge that concept......or at least tinker with the rules a bit.

Most of my wealth is in stocks. What would you do about this? Would you say i give away a certain % of this wealth to the public?

phillw

economic wrote: »

what does this even mean? i think you are contradicting yourself. if degrees arent valuable then how can you do anything with it?

Ironically you don't seem to understand economics.

economic

phillw wrote: »

Ironically you don't seem to understand economics.

so please enlighten me.

Cakeguts

You can't stop people from working their way to the bottom of the population in terms of wealth. Smoking is like rolling up bank notes (the old paper ones) and setting fire to them. Yet lots of people smoke. You can stop smoking if you have enough will power. It is quite interesting how many people who do not have enough will power to stop smoking often don't have enough will power to keep going to their job.

LHW99

I'd be happy with the equality of opportunity bit. Agreed equality of outcome is not the goal.

So in that case, even if a group of people started with equal opportunity to learn and earn, they would not come out in the same place. That could be because of their own efforts (poor / good approaches to life), the situation they grow up / live in or pure chance.

Is it then equitable to say
"you had the same opportunity as X, but you came out poorer, we'll take what X has and give 50% to you and 50% to him because then you will be equal to him."
I don't think I could agree with that as it stands, because the likelihood is that neither would end up with enough.

We need as many people as possible with wealth of whatever source to pay the legal level of taxation, so those who are really struggling can be helped. If all wealth were taxed at the same level, with an overall tax-free allowance, then it would reduce the opportunities for tax avoidance (legal) and allow HMRC to spend more time chasing tax evasion (illegal)

economic

LHW99 wrote: »

So in that case, even if a group of people started with equal opportunity to learn and earn, they would not come out in the same place. That could be because of their own efforts (poor / good approaches to life), the situation they grow up / live in or pure chance.

Is it then equitable to say
"you had the same opportunity as X, but you came out poorer, we'll take what X has and give 50% to you and 50% to him because then you will be equal to him."
I don't think I could agree with that as it stands, because the likelihood is that neither would end up with enough.

We need as many people as possible with wealth of whatever source to pay the legal level of taxation, so those who are really struggling can be helped. If all wealth were taxed at the same level, with an overall tax-free allowance, then it would reduce the opportunities for tax avoidance (legal) and allow HMRC to spend more time chasing tax evasion (illegal)

how do you know those who are "really struggling" arent helped already and also maybe helped a bit too much?

michaels

Moby wrote: »

Ownership is a concept that tends to be defined by people who already have lots of stuff. Surely we can challenge that concept......or at least tinker with the rules a bit.

I agree: those who are strongest, either on their own on within their 'gang' should be allowed to take whatever they want, whenever they want. Make a big enough gang with an election to determine who runs it and you have a govt who then feel empowered to confiscate what some have worked hard to amass to give it to their supporters who would rather take than work hard.

I have a lower income and less assets than many because for me working fewer hours is more important than having more things, I do not expect those who prefer to work more and thus have more physical stuff to give some of it to me.

economic

Nice little video:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/monekys-marxism/

i would have liked to see that monkey on the left get a grape at the end to see the reaction. would have made the point clearer.