h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is an alternative to high taxation rates (50%+)
I believe people should keep what they earn. But there is
a
limit
to this argument when you are already ultra wealthy.
People are against more taxation for globalist level
wealthy, so
people vote against their own interests (they vote
for no
taxation
for the ultrawealthy).
So as an alternative to taxation, we have a bank account
that
limits how much money that can be accessed at once. It
effectively turns into a wealth trust above £1 million
pounds.
This
is more money than anybody needs (except when buying
property)
The wealth trust is automatically invested in return
producing
assets and the interest is returned to the government.
The
government can also borrow from the wealth trust.
The trust would be used for things like investing in the
running
costs of a school, hospital.
Ultra wealthy taxed 91% of profit in order to stimulate both economy and innovation.
https://www.zocalop...re-not/ideas/essay/
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jun 03 2020]
[link]
|
| |
My house and grounds cost £3.7million a year running costs. That's before I factor in the yacht. Lease or buy outright, long term the cost is similar. I guess I'll need to switch to a different bank to avoid this bizarrely low withdrawal limit. |
|
| |
It's an interesting concept [+] but it wouldn't work for several obvious reasons. [-] |
|
| |
Firstly, the very wealthy already own the government so it wouldn't happen in the first place. |
|
| |
Secondly, they have ways to spread out wealth to any desired number of financial entities. |
|
| |
Thirdly, an absolute tax on all interest on amounts over x would remove most incentive to have any amount over x. |
|
| |
Fourthly, there are many legitimate reasons to need large amounts of money for the purpose of investment. |
|
| |
Fifthly, anyone wanting to receive a return on their money could just not put it in the bank. They already mostly don't keep it in bank accounts, and you can't make them. |
|
| |
Sixthly, it would eliminate efficiencies by eliminating large competing businesses. |
|
| |
Seventhly, it's not an alternative to high tax rates. |
|
| |
Eighthly, control over the fund would immediately become corrupted, probably by the people who had that money in the first place. |
|
| |
Ninethly, the massive funds transfer would immediately create its own criminal underworld. |
|
| |
Tenthly, massive amounts of money are currently invested in various levels of government bonds, and in companies. This idea would enormously warp the expected relative return on these investments leading to enforcement of poor decision-making. |
|
| |
Eisenhower, historical evidence, and the folks of that time would tend to disagree with you. [link] |
|
| |
// When you earn above £1 million in a year, your
money gets put in trust |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure they do that already. |
|
| |
//"I believe people should keep what they earn."// |
|
| |
The money slave definitely doesn't need what it earns. |
|
| |