Wealth Distribution In Britain

[Toto deVeer]

So the person leaving the inheritance has a greater incentive to make money (presumably because they like the idea of working for their offspring more than working for themselves).

But what about the offspring who inherits? Surely they are brought up in the belief that they will not have to do anything other than safeguard the inheritance?

And what about the effect of this on society as a whole? People then get used to the idea that Mr/Ms inheritor has wealth that is unobtainable by working - surely the incentive for them to work hard disappears?

I say inheritance tax should be 100%

Well people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would largely agree with you, but I suspect they will have given their money away to charitable foundations before death. So they are a little bit jaundiced in their position.

I understand your arguments, they are quite valid and logical. It is really a balance between the good of all versus individual rights, really. Maybe the best result is somewhere in the middle.

[indirectapproach]

"So you are part of the aristocracy are you?"

No.

[Stars]

But all people have to live somewhere, and where do you live if own no land and have no money?

How are this person's problems a specific feature of land taxation? I would say their problems are actually a specific feature of land ownership.

Or if you own land and have no money?

Would someone, who owns a small plot, and grows their own food, be cast adrift by the state, to starve?

Not sure what you maen here

Edited May 18, 2010 by Stars

[erranta]

Well people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would largely agree with you, but I suspect they will have given their money away to charitable foundations before death. So they are a little bit jaundiced in their position.

I understand your arguments, they are quite valid and logical. It is really a balance between the good of all versus individual rights, really. Maybe the best result is somewhere in the middle.

PAH - don't be taken in by Soros, Buffet, Greenblah or GATES!

They own Billions of shares they bought for nothing in all the new Green/Eco companies/projects 'they' expect to exploit us with over the coming decades!

Edited May 18, 2010 by erranta

[Toto deVeer]

How are this person's problems a specific feature of land taxation? I would say their problems are actually a specific feature of land ownership.

Not sure what you maen here

Well lets say that I am not an ambitious person, I want to keep to myself , work when I need to and pay my own way, and buy a small plot of land. When I retire, I decide that I need very little money, and wish to just live off my little plot of land, in peace.

Now with a land tax, if I could not pay, the state would confiscate my land, and take away that peace, dignity and security. Is that fair?

Do we have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[Stars]

Well lets say that I am not an ambitious person, I want to keep to myself , work when I need to and pay my own way, and buy a small plot of land. When I retire, I decide that I need very little money, and wish to just live off my little plot of land, in peace.

You can't buy a plot of land without money, so, you are paying for this situation with or without land taxation. Which is why i said it is a feature of land ownership, not land taxation.

Now with a land tax, if I could not pay, the state would confiscate my land, and take away that peace, dignity and security. Is that fair?

Let me turn this around - if this owner inists a tenant pay him rent to use 'his' land or else he will confiscate that peace and dignity, is that fair?

Do we have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Not if land is owned, no

[Guest sillybear2]

But all people have to live somewhere, and where do you live if own no land and have no money?

Or if you own land and have no money?

Would someone, who owns a small plot, and grows their own food, be cast adrift by the state, to starve?

The little people already have a land tax in the form of the council tax, you don't even have to own the land of course, merely occupy it. So if you own a fraction of an acre you pay a levy, if you own half of Cornwall for example then you receive subsidies from the tax payer for your troubles, and also get to sell off tiny chunks at a time at astronomical rates for new housing, this is totally wrong.

Edited May 18, 2010 by sillybear2

[Orsino]

I advocate increasing taxes on the very richest people in the country and people start talking about the French Revolution and mob rule. The reality is that is unequal societies like ourselves or the United States that tend to be more violent. More equitable societies like Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Japan have far lower crime rates and other social problems. They're hardly Communist dictatorships are they? Does it matter if the guy down the road is a billionaire? The data suggests very clearly that it does. Drug addiction, environmental pollution, obesity, teenage pregnancy - a whole range of social indicators point to the damaging social effects of wealth inequality. But it is NOT about giving handouts to the poor. The US and UK have the highest levels of personal debt and lowest levels of savings while more equal countries like Japan and German are the opposite. Our welfare-dependent poor are an indication of the failure of our unequal society, not a justification for maintain that inequality. If gross wealth inequalities are so brilliant then Nigeria would be a global superpower. How's Belize benefiting from Lord Ashcroft's millions?

Stating that we should aim for the wealth distribution levels of the Netherlands is treated like some socialist heresy in the UK but it only begins to take us back to where we were as a country a few decades ago. We are brainwashed by X-Factor, the Apprentice and Dragons Den into thinking society only functions when there are only a tiny number of 'winners' and an army of rejects. But think back to your childhood and it seems the gap between rich and poor was not so great. That's because it wasn't! We have allowed our society to be ruined while a tiny handful have more wealth than they could possible spend in 10 lifetimes.

[Guest sillybear2]

Sorry, I don't follow you. I'm against income tax. I don't see how my suggested taxation system interferes with meritocracy. It rewards the efforts of labour and physical world wealth, not speculative wealth, or the gain of wealth for wealth's sake.

Most inherited wealth in this land is nothing to do with meritocracy or a measure of a person's virtuous industriousness, it's mostly due to the fact some Lord was fortunate enough to enclose a load of common land a couple of hundred years ago then beat the peasants into submission. Have you ever done an honest day's work or put the toothpaste on your own toothbrush? If yes then you have won a moral victory over Prince Charles.

Edited May 18, 2010 by sillybear2

[Cogs]

Sorry, but meritocracy is one of the strongest ethical principles.

Besides, the successful investor benefits the whole society. I don't see any logical reason to stop this investor from keep working, investing. Remember that his income will still be taxed, and his estate will be taxed when he dies.

Regarding inheritance, paraphrasing you, why a heir should be allowed to inherit more than, say, 10 million pounds?

The word Meritocracy is literally a joke.

[Stars]

The word Meritocracy is literally a joke.

True - but the principle underlying the meaning of the word is worthwhile. You gain by doing something good (merit)

[indirectapproach]

One of the problems with these collectivist nations like the Jermans and the Japs is that they do seem prone to this collective folly thing like the rape of Nanking or the Warsaw thing.

Suggesting that the British should be more like the Jermans is just rubbish. Who on earth, why on earth would anyone want to be Jerman?

If it was so good to be a Jerman, why all the angst?

As I understadn it the word "angst" does not mean the same in Jerman as English.

In Jerman, it means hatred.

[Cogs]

True - but the principle underlying the meaning of the word is worthwhile. You gain by doing something good (merit)

But therein lies the problem; the definition is circular as usual.

[cashinmattress]

This is Britain. Same as it ever was.

[winkie]

This is Britain. Same as it ever was.

[Toto deVeer]

Most inherited wealth in this land is nothing to do with meritocracy or a measure of a person's virtuous industriousness, it's mostly due to the fact some Lord was fortunate enough to enclose a load of common land a couple of hundred years ago then beat the peasants into submission. Have you ever done an honest day's work or put the toothpaste on your own toothbrush? If yes then you have won a moral victory over Prince Charles.

I can boil my own eggs too...another victory over Charlie..

[erranta]

The word Meritocracy is literally a joke.

Look@ the American Dream - exactly that!

Throughout it's history a certain percentage have to be landless, jobless/seasonal slaves with little or NO access to the 'benefits' of those above!

There are nearly 100 million 'Americans' kept in 3rd? world poverty!

Edited May 18, 2010 by erranta

[Toto deVeer]

Let me turn this around - if this owner inists a tenant pay him rent to use 'his' land or else he will confiscate that peace and dignity, is that fair?

So you are equating the two situations; on birth, we are forever beholden to a landlord, either in the form of a private citizen or to the state, the two are as one...and the newborn is a serf in either case....is that what you are advocating?

This seems to me to be stacked very much in favour of the rich, provided that they have serfs enough to produce income from their land to pay the state...

[LJAR]

This (link) is what the income distribution has done over the last 30 years or so.

Not so bad really, we have fewer people on low incomes and more people on higher incomes.

As for poverty in the UK and the USA, Our poor would be well off in Africa, South America, Russia or India. Forgive me if I reserve most of my worrying for people on the verge of starvation, rather than people who are clothed, housed, warm and (over) fed in the UK.

Edited May 18, 2010 by LJAR

[Stars]

So you are equating the two situations; on birth, we are forever beholden to a landlord, either in the form of a private citizen or to the state, the two are as one...and the newborn is a serf in either case....is that what you are advocating?

I'm pointing out that your objections to land taxation are not actually objections to land taxation; they are objections to land ownership or exclusive possesion of land. With that missunderstanding squared away, we can compare having taxed exclusive possesion with having untaxed exclusive possesion.

This seems to me to be stacked very much in favour of the rich, provided that they have serfs enough to produce income from their land to pay the state...

Not at all - the owners now have to compete somewhat to keep possesion, the 'serfs' pay no tax on their wages but recieve government services and the price of real estate is low.

Quite a dramatic improvement.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Stars

[erranta]

This (link) is what the income distribution has done over the last 30 years or so.

Not so bad really, we have fewer people on low incomes and more people on higher incomes.

As for poverty in the UK and the USA, Our poor would be well off in Africa, South America, Russia or India. Forgive me if I reserve most of my worrying for people on the verge of starvation, rather than people who are clothed, housed, warm and (over) fed in the UK.

Why compare 3rd world with 1st world?

We are talking about inequality in the UK.

Regarding 3rd World,

It is the exploitation by Western Govts/Western companies/Middle Men who cause the poverty in the poorer countries (in collusion with the despots they put in charge) in search of higher profits (for the few rich)

People buying the stuff in the West haven't got a clue what's going on and think the "MIDDLE MEN" pay them a decent rate for their produce.

It is AGAINST the law to beg in the UK - so it gives the 'illusion' that there are not tens of thousands being cut off by their utility companies because they can't afford to pay their bills - a choice of feeding their kids or NOT to pay to keep some hidden Millionaire foreigners in the style they have become accustomed to!

You are given the 'illusion' that there are virtually no "homeless" in the 2010 UK (they mix in with the population during the day then get scooped up into hostels) >>>

"In the 1960s, the nature and growing problem of homelessness changed in England as public concern grew. The number of people living "rough" in the streets had increased dramatically.

(This was supposed to be in a huge BOOM period)

However, beginning with the Conservative administration's Rough Sleeper Initiative, the number of people sleeping rough in London fell dramatically. This initiative was supported further by the incoming Labour administration from 2009 onwards with the publication of the 'Coming in from the Cold' strategy published by the Rough Sleepers Unit, which proposed and delivered a massive increase in the number of hostel bed spaces in the capital and an increase in funding for street outreach teams, who work with rough sleepers to enable them to access services."

"Following the Peasants' Revolt, British constables were authorised under a 1383 statute to collar vagabonds ('WINDSOR KNOT'!) and force them to show support; if they could not, the penalty was gaol.

Vagabonds could be sentenced to the stocks for three days and nights; in 1530, whipping was added. The presumption was that vagabonds were 'unlicensed' beggars.

In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more

extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and

branding with a "V"('V' for Victory!) as the penalty for the first offense and death for the second.

One arriving in the American colonies in the 18th century were transported convicts (The original so-called Red-necks). Large numbers of vagabonds were transported along with ordinary criminals.

During the 16th century in England, the state first tried to give housing to vagrants instead of punishing them, by introducing bridewells to take vagrants and train them for a profession. In the 17th and 18th centuries, these were replaced by workhouses but these were intended to discourage too much reliance on state help."

Edited May 18, 2010 by erranta

[Toto deVeer]

I'm pointing out that your objections to land taxation are not actually objections to land taxation; they are objections to land ownership or exclusive possesion of land. With that missunderstanding squared away, we can compare having taxed exclusive possesion with having untaxed exclusive possesion.

Not at all - the owners now have to compete somewhat to keep possesion, the 'serfs' pay no tax on their wages but recieve government services and the price of real estate is low.

Quite a dramatic improvement.

I just don't get it.

By introducing a land tax, you are taxing someone for their existence, for life, are you not? As we all must have somewhere to live.

Whereas, a person who could buy land, without tax, would not have this burden. Am I correct?

[Edit: I'm playing devil's advocate here. You see, in the USA, property is taxed, as opposed to the council tax in the UK. Yet the income disparity is worse in America than in the UK, so is it really the solution, as proposed at the Renegade Economist website]

Edited May 18, 2010 by Toto deVeer

[Stars]

I just don't get it.

By introducing a land tax, you are taxing someone for their existence, for life, are you not? As we all must have somewhere to live.

No, the tax does not fall on use or occupation, only ownership. In effect you are taxing somebody for holding the special option to exclude someone else from land.

Presently land owners can actually charge people for mere existence, but a land tax is not such a charge

Whereas, a person who could buy land, without tax, would not have this burden. Am I correct?

If they have to buy the land, then they are also paying and so also have to pay this burden

Edit to add..

I think i understand your point now - You should know that the tax acts to bring down the price of real estate dramtically and so in one scenario a buyer pays a very high price for land and pays no tax, in the other he pays a much lower price, but also pays tax

Edited May 18, 2010 by Stars

[Toto deVeer]

No, the tax does not fall on use or occupation, only ownership. In effect you are taxing somebody for holding the special option to exclude someone else from land.

But hang on, if I do not own the land, I will pay the landlord to occupy that land, no? And that price is going to include the tax the owner pays, plus some rental value. No?

[Stars]

But hang on, if I do not own the land, I will pay the landlord to occupy that land, no? And that price is going to include the tax the owner pays, plus some rental value. No?

I hate to pre-empt somebody's argument but are you suggesting the landlord wil simply add the tax to the rental price, thius passing the cost to the tenant?

The quick answer is he can't, because for various economic reasons the existence of the tax acts to lower the market price of land.