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
Have you considered taking a measly 20 seconds out of your day—surely a fraction of the time you took to type this comment—to google this information?

Another point: have you considered that the authorities and people of the Netherlands, a very rich country with several valuable companies, may have possibly thought of this absolutely trivial argument when designing their tax code? Do you really think nobody thought of it?

Jesus

---

To your point: stakes in your _own_ company are not taxed as assets, but as income, precisely to avoid the ridiculous situation you point out.

Simply put: your retirement savings, your brokerage account = assets, your startup, your company, your farm = income.

>>andrep+PY
> To your point: stakes in your _own_ company are not taxed as assets, but as income, precisely to avoid the ridiculous situation you point out.

Enlightening, so you mean this policy isn't for the so called "1%"? Only for middle class folks and their stock portfolios? That's not what the GP was proposing.

> Another point: have you considered that the authorities and people of the Netherlands, a very rich country with several valuable companies, may have possibly thought of this absolutely trivial argument when designing their tax code? Do you really think nobody thought of it?

Yes, because I can point to an even richer country, with even more valuable companies where the left proposed same destructive policy only a few months ago and almost came close to winning.

Lastly, you did make me look it up and it seems Netherlands and other European countries really didn't think it through.

https://www.leideninternationalcentre.nl/get-advice/blogs/su...

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jasoncalacanis_norways-wealth...

>>shivas+Fb1
> so you mean this policy isn't for the so called "1%"? Only for middle class folks and their stock portfolios?

What do you mean? This is a proportional tax (slightly progressive actually due to the 0% rate on the first bracket). It's for everyone with such assets.

> where the left proposed same destructive policy only a few months ago and almost came close to winning.

If you think either of the major parties in the USA can be in any way described as "left" then this is not a serious conversation.