SD on 14/12/2009 at 15:12
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Thanks for the semantics lesson. Now, please explain to me why A is in any way less entitled to the increase of his wealth then D. Morally, or technically.
I'd first need to know what "works hard to add value to the home they live in" meant, to be honest.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
So, suppose I bought a house in the American Mid-West, for $500,000, and live there, and ten years later, it's worth $150,000 because the economy's in the shitter, what do you call that?
Fiction?
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
According to your position, I've received an
unearned loss of 350,000$ due to dropping housing prices. I haven't harmed society in any way from me living in a property that rapidly depreciated in value. I haven't taken 350,000$ worth of wealth from society for living in that house for 10 years.
Does that mean I deserve a handout?
Why on earth should it?
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Suppose I bought a house for $300,000. Every house on the street was worth that much. I could afford to buy any of them. Let's say in ten years, every house on the street is worth $1,000,000, including mine.
Since you saying that since I don't deserve the wealth associated with my home rising in value, does that mean that in your perfect world, I should not be able to trade my home for any of the other million dollar houses on the street?
Some strawmanning going on here. I don't see why anything should stop you from trading your home for another one in the same street at the same value.
Quote Posted by SD
People with a lot of wealth spend a lower proportion of it then people with a little wealth.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
That's because they don't spend it. They (Or their bank)
invest it.
So?
SubJeff on 14/12/2009 at 15:15
So do you agree that I should get taxed on the car I'm getting for Xmas?
SD on 14/12/2009 at 15:22
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
So do you agree that I should get taxed on the car I'm getting for Xmas?
Not sure how it relates to what I was saying, but I think you should pay tax on the fuel it uses. I would happily abolish road tax and shift it all onto fuel consumption.
Swiss Mercenary on 14/12/2009 at 15:25
Quote Posted by SD
I'd first need to know what "works hard to add value to the home they live in" meant, to be honest.
Does it honestly matter? By your definition, whether it be inflation, a rennovation, or property prices rising, it's unearned and undeserved income.
Quote:
Why on earth should it?
Because it's an unearned and an undeserved loss. I have not harmed, or extracted value from society in any way, shape, or form, that warrants me losing wealth.
If I am going to be penalised for an unearned and undeserved gain, shouldn't things swing the other way?
You know, much like you pay UI dues when you work, and you collect it when you get laid off?
Quote:
Some strawmanning going on here. I don't see why anything should stop you from trading your home for another one in the same street at the same value.
Well, in your ideal world, 70% of that home's value is unearned and undeserved. I don't see how you think it's a good idea for people to trade value that's not been earned or deserved by them.
So it does go back to the economy, just as well as the money the plebes spend on booze and hockey tickets. Your point?
SD on 14/12/2009 at 15:38
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Does it honestly matter? By your definition, whether it be inflation, a rennovation, or property prices rising, it's unearned and undeserved income.
First off, the definition "unearned income" isn't
my definition - it's
the definition.
Secondly, unearned /= undeserved. Please, don't put words in my mouth.
If you're going to argue that inheritance tax can dissuade renovation of and investment in properties, then congratulations - you just happened upon one of the drawbacks of IHT. It's not a perfect tax, it just happens to be one of the least worst taxes
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Because it's an unearned and an undeserved loss. I have not harmed, or extracted value from society in any way, shape, or form, that warrants me losing wealth.
Then that's hard lines. But you're still living in the same house, and if you don't sell it, then it doesn't really matter what value the market puts on it, does it?
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
If I am going to be penalised for an unearned and undeserved gain, shouldn't things swing the other way?
Ignoring the inaccurate conflation of unearned and undeserved, that's not how this works. It doesn't change the fact that wealth taxes are preferable to income taxes.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
So it does go back to the economy, just as well as the money the plebes spend on booze and hockey tickets. Your point?
But investment is a less useful activity than spending...
SubJeff on 14/12/2009 at 16:10
SD if I'm being given a £40k car by an ancestor isn't that unearned wealth I've gained?
And I think the point about about the property losing value is that, just like when it gains value, its a change in value that is not earned. If you are going to tax gained unearned wealth why not repay lost unearned wealth? Make money and have it taken off you, lose it and its tough luck. Seems a bit biased against the wealthy.
Just saying, since I actually agree with some amount of inheritance tax.
You never addessed the issue of the Lib Dems agreeing with me on capital gains (unearned wealth) being changed into earned tax. If they believe that rising house prices should mean extra income tax instead of capital gains tax then surely they disagree with you about what constitutes unearned wealth.
SD on 14/12/2009 at 16:18
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
SD if I'm being given a £40k car by an ancestor isn't that unearned wealth I've gained?
Are you talking about inheriting a car or being given it by your parents while they're still alive? If your parents give you a £40,000 car, it could still be liable for inheritance tax should they sadly pass on within 7 years of making the gift.
So far as the capital gains tax thing is concerned, I'm not familiar with whatever it is you're referring to, would you happen to have an article or policy briefing to hand?
SubJeff on 14/12/2009 at 16:44
Pocket Guide to Lib Dem Policies, 2nd paragraph "We would pay for this tax cut by closing tax loopholes which benefit the wealthy such as restricting tax relief on pensions to the basic rate and taxing capital gains as income."
CCCToad on 14/12/2009 at 16:45
Quote:
Do you think rich people build gigantic treasuries where they put all their money in cash and swim in it?
If not, just what DO they do with all that money?
I'd think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Of course, people with more income spend more than those with less, and on things that those with less do. There is a point, though, where excessive accumulation of wealth in one place does more harm than good.
To quote Star Wars, Only a Sith thinks in absolutes. Are you a Sith Koki?
Koki on 14/12/2009 at 16:47
Star Wars sucks.
