The problem with the benefit system
Comments
-
UK had a one off wealth tax after both world wars.
Italy, Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovaki had post ww1 levys. Finland had one in the 40s.
France, West Germany, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands (twice), Finland (again), Luxembourg, Norway and Denmark post ww2 reconstruction.
FWIW post-ww1 levies were not very successful and led to a lot of capital flight, but post-ww2 ones largely were.
More recently Iceland and Ireland had a wealth levies post GFC which were pretty broad.
I would say Covid is an excellent reason to levy one.
0 -
Might well be.
Would it solve your pensions problem?
0 -
-
So, how about an annual wealth tax, which I think is what you had in mind.
Spain has one, but I don't know how it works.
0 -
I'm not sure it's controversial to suggest a way things could work is that individuals build up their assets until age x, then effectively gradually liquidate them throughout retirement.
0 -
So die naked or do they get to keep their clothes?
0 -
It still doesn't solve the issue of where they then live if the main asset is a house though. If there's currently a shortage of 2 bedroom houses and a bunch of OAPs are coming into the market with a wad of cash made off the sale of the 5 bedroom detached how are the first-time buyers going to compete? Who is going to buy all the million pound houses? More than happy for the asset being taxed at some point but not many people bought their houses 40 or 50 years ago expecting them to be worth what they are today.
0 -
Are you suggesting a regular wealth tax to fund pensions RC?
I thought you were suggesting reducing the state pension (either by raising the age, means testing it, whatever) and if that meant some people had to rethink whether their current house was the best use of their wealth, so be it.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I’m getting side tracked.
For the thread yes reducing the state pension to more sustainable levels.
0 -
Worth remembering that if these boomers are as rich as some people think then they will have other sources of income and will pay tax on their state pension. So some will be giving 40% of it straight back to the state.
Seems reasonable.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I looked up what "side tracked" means. I am surprised to know that it means entirely changing one's course when headwinds are encountered. The term isn't often used this way though.
0 -
No, no, you get equity release, then young people buy at inflated prices from the bank.
0 -
It's almost as if the phrase was incented for these sort of debates with RC 😀
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So does this mean following generations are screwed anyway as there won’t be much left to inherit, and what there is will be wealth taxed?
0 -
There's a good argument that imposing wealth tax now will reduce what gets passed down to millenials by their parents.
Although we already have a wealth tax called IHT.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The state giveth and the state taketh away….
0 -
I think the wealth tax RC had in mind was annual. It isn't totally absurd, but I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example where it works, or how much it could raise.
0 -
A way things could work ...
But ultimately you can't take it with you.
0 -
To be fair to Rick I think he has been consistent in his argument that this would be a good thing. I’m not convinced of the benefit of every generation having to start for themselves from scratch but unless I’ve misunderstood previous discussions I think that is something he has no issue with (including for himself). It might help the economy as there wouldn’t be much sense in leaving anything you’ve earned in your lifetime as an unspent asset I suppose.
0 -
No, people would just hide money, send it overseas or give it away to family sooner. It is inevitable that people will do everything possible not to give it to the bastard government, whoever that happens to be.
0 -
For what? I guess you might want something for the Crem. Saying that, I have inherited a pair of my dad's socks. 😁
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The important point is whether they are naked and destitute before or after dying.
0 -
Well if you knew when you were going to die then you could plan to just leave enough for the funeral, but we don't know when we are going to die.
Most people do not consider their house to be an investment., and nor should they. It is a roof over their head first, and foremost. It is in no way comparable with a fixed term bond.
As for forcing oldies to sell and then rent - really? It will do nothing to increase the housing stock and cause a lot of hurt and upset. Remember that a house is first and foremost a home, not an investment.
The only non-idiotic (blatant trolling) thing that might be sensible is to not exempt the principal primary residence from Capital Gains Tax.
If wealth taxes working, we'd see them across the developed world. We don't see them because they won't work.
0 -
I did see a headline that in time Rick's generation will be the wealthiest ever when they receive their inheritances from their awful boomer parents.
1 -
I might be wrong but I think Ricks parents are leaving it all to the cats home.
0 -
That might explain some of his bitterness
1 -
Well quite. What most people fail to factor in when talking about new taxes (or raising existing ones) is the human reaction.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But how will Rick ever get a big house on the cheap?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is, as the Dutch would say, mustard after the mealtime.
And, as ever, I object to a world where wealth is so entrenched, earnings don’t matter. For lots of reasons, but above all, one shouldn’t have to rely on parents for wealth or not as you don’t get to chose them. It’s grossly unfair. Hereditary money is not the one.
People on average have children when they’re 30, and they live on average to 80, so that inheritance, if you even get it, arrives when you’re in your 50s.
0 -
Its pretty uncommon, for a reason. A quick Google says that only 5 OECD countries still levy a wealth tax, down from 12 in the early 90's. If they were a good idea they would be pretty universal.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0