zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
The British government closed this loophole because it's politically easier than the strategy which is actually needed: properly taxing assets.

This is much harder to evade - if you own most of Mayfair, you can't just move your assets elsewhere - they are very clearly tied to the location.

Of course, this would mean taxing powerful aristocrats, including the royal family. With their large majority, the British government had the opportunity to do this, but decided to take an easier path. The reason why this path was easier is now becoming clear to them.

>>bashto+T2
Wait are you suggesting that we tax assets instead of income?

>>shivas+J4
It's not a revolutionary idea. That I know of, the Netherlands does it, somewhat. How it works is: rather than taxing capital gains, with its myriad loopholes and counterloopholes, you tax assets directly: assume a neutral sort of "risk-free" rate of return, and then tax a percentage of that. E.g. assume yearly return of 1% on cash and savings, 6% on other assets, etc, then levy tax of 30% on that (past a tax-free allowance of 25k€ per person).

Simple, and more effective!

>>andrep+H5
I would consider it very destabilizing idea and an affront to fairness really.

As an example, Wouldn't that mean that if my startup raises a round of 1m for 10%, my NW would go to 0 to 9m. 6% of that would be around 0.5m, and 30% tax would mean I would have to pay 162,000 EUR in taxes.

As a cash poor founder how do you suggest I pay that.

That's why taxing income and not wealth has been the norm.

>>shivas+08
Not to mention no one would pay you $9m for your stake and for you to walk away…