<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s the rate of return on losing $8 billion?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/30/whats-the-rate-of-return-on-losing-8-billion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/30/whats-the-rate-of-return-on-losing-8-billion/</link>
	<description>Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dane Clouston</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/30/whats-the-rate-of-return-on-losing-8-billion/#comment-246410</link>
		<dc:creator>Dane Clouston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/30/whats-the-rate-of-return-on-losing-8-billion/#comment-246410</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure what you can do about this in this generation, but what about the next? One must have hope for the future.

Surely we should introduce a negative and progressive lifetime Capital Receipts Tax?

Why should the heirs of crooks, geniuses. grafters, trustafarians and over-compensated incompetents start off with hundreds of millions, before they lift a finger, while others start off with absolutely nothing?  

Let everyone start off with a national Universal Inheritance of 10% (£9,000 in UK) of average national wealth (£90,000 in UK) at 25, means-tested, subject to and financed by such a progressive Lifetime Capital Receipts Tax, starting at 10 %.

Let donors pay a flat 10% for witholding and record purposes (yes, a double tax on after-tax income, like, but less than, VAT).  Have no inter-generational exemptions but intra-generational exemptions beween partners, spouses and cohabiting siblings. Make the flat tax paid by donors deductible from the progressive Capital Receipts Tax due from recipients.

It is time to look again at "An Accessions Tax" by CT Sandford, JRM Willis, DJ Ironside - Institute for Fiscal Studies PUblication No 7 September 1973. 

 Their mistake was to see this as a replacement for the tax on giving and bequeathing.  The two taxes should operate in a broadly self-financing tandem, with transferable tax credits between the two.

Who is looking at this, apart from the Liberal Party, whose policy this British Universal Inheritance is? (See www.liberal.org.uk - not the EU-fanatic Lib Dems - and www.universal-inheritance.org)

It is time to break the widespread political, professional and social taboo on the redistribution of wealth, as opposed to income.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure what you can do about this in this generation, but what about the next? One must have hope for the future.</p>
<p>Surely we should introduce a negative and progressive lifetime Capital Receipts Tax?</p>
<p>Why should the heirs of crooks, geniuses. grafters, trustafarians and over-compensated incompetents start off with hundreds of millions, before they lift a finger, while others start off with absolutely nothing?  </p>
<p>Let everyone start off with a national Universal Inheritance of 10% (£9,000 in UK) of average national wealth (£90,000 in UK) at 25, means-tested, subject to and financed by such a progressive Lifetime Capital Receipts Tax, starting at 10 %.</p>
<p>Let donors pay a flat 10% for witholding and record purposes (yes, a double tax on after-tax income, like, but less than, VAT).  Have no inter-generational exemptions but intra-generational exemptions beween partners, spouses and cohabiting siblings. Make the flat tax paid by donors deductible from the progressive Capital Receipts Tax due from recipients.</p>
<p>It is time to look again at &#8220;An Accessions Tax&#8221; by CT Sandford, JRM Willis, DJ Ironside - Institute for Fiscal Studies PUblication No 7 September 1973. </p>
<p> Their mistake was to see this as a replacement for the tax on giving and bequeathing.  The two taxes should operate in a broadly self-financing tandem, with transferable tax credits between the two.</p>
<p>Who is looking at this, apart from the Liberal Party, whose policy this British Universal Inheritance is? (See <a href="http://www.liberal.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.liberal.org.uk</a> - not the EU-fanatic Lib Dems - and <a href="http://www.universal-inheritance.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.universal-inheritance.org</a>)</p>
<p>It is time to break the widespread political, professional and social taboo on the redistribution of wealth, as opposed to income.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tax Research UK / Are accountants accountable?</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/30/whats-the-rate-of-return-on-losing-8-billion/#comment-246325</link>
		<dc:creator>Tax Research UK / Are accountants accountable?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/30/whats-the-rate-of-return-on-losing-8-billion/#comment-246325</guid>
		<description>[...] What&#8217;s the rate of return on losing $8 billion? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] What&#8217;s the rate of return on losing $8 billion? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
