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
Americans become idiots when it comes to tax, unable to understand even the simplest concepts or fathom that things might have been possibly implemented elsewhere.

Hell even Switzerland taxes global assets. You just declare your stocks, property, etc at some instantaneous value and that’s that. Capital gains aren’t taxed.

The system is easy to cheat and until recently it was possible for HNW people to get a bespoke deal when moving there. But the tax rate is low enough and the risk is high enough that it’s more beneficial to just pay.