To complement the paper on wealth taxation I published this morning I have an opinion piece in the Guardian this afternoon:
It may be appropriate to read the Guardian piece as a follow on to the paper on other reforms.
PS: Yes I know I am on holiday; writing articles for the Guardian is, as my youngest son put it, what a dad who is not very good at 'laid back' does on holiday.
I agree but wouldn’t it be a good idea to go for this proper taxation with a quid pro quo of giving to every single child at a certain age on the lines here:
http://evonomics.com/how-capitalism-actually-generates-more-inequality/
At least it would get rid of the so called politics of envy and would move the discussion to a rather different place. It’s not Universal Basic Income but it’s certainly a start!
Let’s go for UBI
The Telegraph Opinion today, “It is encouraging that a man whose family first got rich because his ancestor was the fat huntsman (gros veneur) of William the Conqueror has £9 billion today, 950 years later. It shows that our culture respects private property over government interference. It gives hope to us all.” [1]
Thinking about a resolution for annual conference now. “A XXXX Government will require the ONS to compile a list of all inheritance tax avoidance trusts, for estates of value greater than £XM and listing all beneficiaries, prior to passing legislation to reform such structures …”.
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/13/a-dukes-wealth-is-the-natural-result-of-a-free-society—and-sho/
So tax is government interference?
You couldn’t make it up….
What a staggeringly odious article. It reads like a parody of a Telegraph opinion written by the Onion.
Charles Moore is odious