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.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
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