I'm open to compromise on the edit, but I can't see any argument at all against the first part.

Furhther edit: Ah, sod it. 100% inheritance tax without exceptions. Everything else to be taxed uniformly.

You think multiple property ownership should be banned? Go on, list all the non-communist republics that have such a ban.

Are you saying uniform treatment of all income for taxation purposes? So same treatment for DIRT, wages, dividends, etc

Or a tax system that taxes your first euro at the same rate as your last? A flat tax.

Or both?

PS: consumption taxes are superior to income taxes because consumption is not as volatile, has less effect on behaviour, and in the long run consumption is a better measure of someone's welfare than income is.

Unless I misread your post (it is worded funny with phrases being backwards etc) what is wrong with multiple property ownership in a Republic?

The main feature of our "republic" is the guarantee of strong property rights, the alternative is weak/no property rights as you can see in shitholes across the world.

After all who are you to tell any other citizen what they do and where they invest their after tax income (dont forget our state has some of the highest personal taxation, and the most "progressive" taxation curve).

I never inherited a cent from my parents (and probably will not seeing how deep in debt they are), was raised an educated for free in this Republic (for which I am grateful) instead of skipping ship to Australia etc (like half the country seems to have done at one stage) i spend all of my adult life working hard and paying all of our insane taxes. Now some young boy/girl will hopefully be educated on my taxmoney and hopefully their safety and wellbeing is take care by gardai and health system. It would suck to see that taxmoney instead be wasted and given away on developers, or mortgage subsidies or worse on those people who think they are entitled to free state housing without having to lift a finger.

Whether I invest my after tax income in property, stock or even bitcoin (:D there's quite a success story) is none of other citizens concerns.
I approach my rentals same way I approach my business, as a business where I provide X + Y and receive Z in return.

BTW my current tenants are guaranteed no rent increases for next 2 years or so, but I am not guaranteed that they will not trash the place, I am not guaranteed that they will pay on time, I am not guaranteed that my contract with them will be enforced if issues arise. So beside lack of supply, government taxation another reason for rising prices is lack of regulation and contract enforcement. We are seeing the same in insurance industry where ever higher costs due to the legal system (or so is claimed) are passed onto consumers like me and you.

The former



They're only less volatile if they're imposed on non discretionary spending. I assume you're happy to have VAT on food, rent, mortgage capital repayments, etc?
Maybe I'm atypical, but income tax has never affected my behaviour. OTOH, a consumption tax might raise the price of something to the point at which I decide it's simply not worth buying. Also, as a self employed person, I will try to keep my income below the VAT registration threshold, to avoid the extra administrative burden, unless I know it's going to be well above the threshold, in order to make the hassle worthwhile (It will also raise my prices to customers, making me less competitive). Transaction taxes are a real deterrent to activity.

I'm not entirely sure that consumption is necessarily a better measure of welfare than income. If I have a high income, but spend very little, am I worse off than someone who earns a little more than my expenditure, but spends all of it? That point would appear to be moot.

You are taking a narrow view from your own perspective. There are many things you have to balance in designing a tax system.

Equity
Ease of collection
Least impact on economic activity

A design that is good on some of these grounds makes it bad on others. For example the VAT threshold is good from an ease of collection perspective but it is bad on economic efficiency grounds.

Check out Milton Friedman best moments video in my signature on 100% inheritance tax.

It's a very sad day when people become content with handing over their hard earned crust to pay for little or nothing in return for it.

If I am subject to 100% inheritance tax, I won't be worrying about handing over my assets. In fact, I won't be worrying about anything at all, for the very simple reason that I'll be dead. If the government want the whole lot at that stage, it really won't be my problem.

100% inheritance tax is highly progressive, since it takes money from those who will miss it the least (the dead), does nothing to reduce activity (the dead don't do much) and is impossible to dodge (we all die some time). It is a more or less perfect tax.

I've seen the MF clip and I'm still not convinced. Receiving an inheritance has reduced my inclination to work for pay in a way that higher income tax levels never would. In fact, one could argue that a lower rate of income tax would ultimately reduce my activity sooner than a higher one, since I'd be able to amass sufficient savings to sustain me to a point at which I no longer needed to earn, more quickly. Once I've saved enough, I can afford to leave the paid workforce with all its hassle. Anything I do beyond that can be done as a hobby. If you can afford to, it's actually easier to work without being paid. As for his comment about dissipating assets on high living, nope, ain't gonna happen.

What's that old saying, there's only two tax rates where you collect nothing... 0% and 100%.

Sounds to me like you do not have a family and kids
Once you get old enough and have a loved one and kids then how would you feel if the sum of your life's work can not be passed onto them?

I would be insulted, highly. You spent all your life working, paying taxes like a good sheep, only for whatever assets you have built up to be taken away from you when you die, leaving no legacy.

100% inheritance tax is daft, and would only result in people bypassing it, i can think of several ways top of my head.

Having children doesn't remove the case for caring about other people. That's just selfish and narrow-minded.

My "life's work" is not about accumulating currency tokens. I have a vast corpus of internet bickering to serve as a monument to an adulthood well spent.

I'm quite old enough already, thank you. I have no intention of reproducing and never have had and I don't care whether I have a legacy, since that's not my problem.
I don't much care about paying a bit more or less tax, since I already earn more than I need to satisfy my wants and much more than to satisfy my needs. I save because there's nothing on which to spend it and otherwise really only to ensure that I have a safety net.
Once I'm no longer in a position to need my wealth, I really don't care what happens to it, but if you do think there should be a level playing field, then the only thing you should inherit is your genome.


That's the spirit!

Right nearly half of our income being taken away every year to help other people is selfish

And wanting to pass on what little is saved/invested of the aftertax income to own kids/spouse is narrow-minded

Gotcha

I agree with this in theory but in practice I think what you'd see is wide scale avoidance by the rich using various trusts, investment partnerships, asset finagling and the like. We already have that with the magic exemption for kids who live in the home which they then get tax-free. Of course you can slowly plug all these holes, but in reality the problem isn't so much the headline tax rate as the antiavoidance measures and enforcement. Without proper antiavoidance and enforcement none of it really matters for those rich enough to put structures in place.

I think you'd see wide scale avoidance by everyone. The problem is that most would see it as unjust and do whatever it took to make sure that they avoided it.

And anyone else would be sure to fritter it away on frivolity rather than have it go to the state.