I was talking about the army. The Monarchy only pays its own wages if you allow them all the land that is rightfully the states.
Last edited:
Society Putin has decided to "run" for President again
- Thread starter member 3289
- Start date
-
- Tags
- president
How do you figure it's rightfully the state's?
Because the Crown Estate always moved with the office of monarchy, the Sovereign, not down the line of the family that held the monarchy. If you abolish the monarchy the Parliament becomes Sovereign and hence takes the Crown Estate.
If we're talking about land in general in the UK about 70% of it is owned by 1% of the population, and much of that dates back to the Norman Conquest and William just handing it out to his mates, but I guess those families deserve it because their ancestor a thousand years ago was pretty good at putting his sword about. Hard work, boot straps and everything.
Its for this reason I'm generally against removing the Monarchs. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a fairer society without them but removing them just solves part of the problem. IMO old money (people born into wealth) poses more of a problem to regular people than one family does.
The question is, should people who have inherited wealth be stripped of their assets or not?
Wealth should be taxed instead of income.
I imagine there would be a sharp fall in the amount of taxes the country could collect in that case.
If you abolish the government, the monarch takes the Crown Estate.
It states in your link that the land belongs to the Monarch.
"On George III's accession he surrendered the income from the Crown lands to Parliament, together with abrogating responsibility for the cost of the civil government and the clearance of associated debts."
"Every succeeding sovereign down to and including Elizabeth II renewed the arrangement made between George III and Parliament and the practice was, by the nineteenth century, recognised as "an integral part of the Constitution [which] would be difficult to abandon"."
The description seems a little contradictory. I guess the crown and the state share different aspects of ownership of the land.
Why?
Because the combined average income of all working Brits over the course of a year comes to £717,132,150,000. I know some rich people are stashing their wealth but its not over 700 billion worth.
Additional the wealth has been accumulated over years, so every time you tax it, there is less to tax next time.
Additional the wealth has been accumulated over years, so every time you tax it, there is less to tax next time.
Even before that the Crown Estate didn't move down the family line of the Monarch but moved to the successive Monarch. Due to the rules of ascension and who had the strongest claim to the throne the Monarchy didn't always move from the monarch to their family, but to a different family, and as such the Crown Estate moved with the Monarchy, not down the familial line. As it moves with the Monarchy, but if the Monarchy is abolished by the State, it would move to the State.
Why do you assume that none of those people would pay a wealth tax?
Because you said tax wealth not income, the above figure is based on the average Brit earnings x number of people work. By your suggestion income is not taxable, only wealth.
I would argue that wealth is a smaller figure than total income.
How could wealth be smaller than total income? Everyone has a wealth it's your total assets. Once income arrives to you it is wealth.
'As of 2017 the total wealth of the adult population in the United Kingdom (UK) was 14.1 trillion U.S. dollars. '
Total wealth value in the United Kingdom (UK) 2010-2017 | Statistic
We can work out a progressive way to do it. It would just take a team of experts and a few months.
Total wealth value in the United Kingdom (UK) 2010-2017 | Statistic
We can work out a progressive way to do it. It would just take a team of experts and a few months.
We have different ideas of what wealth is then.
To me wealth is everything above your needs to live. So for the average person any wealth they have is after you deduct for living expenses such as a basic social life, food, kids, transport, rent/mortgage and so - anything above and beyond that is wealth, or at least IMO.
Still as a government you are still faced with the problem that if you tax wealth, you remove some it, leaving less in the pot for the next. Unless I've completely misunderstood you and you mean all income is wealth, in which case I don't see what the difference is between taxing wealth and taxing income, as they would be classes as the same.
No, it would be redistributed it wouldn't be hoarded by the government and lost. Income is a portion of wealth. I'm not sure what your having trouble with here.
Thats just over 10 trillion in £. But I assume it takes into account peoples homes and such.
There is no ethical way to do what you suggest. There are probably 1000's of variables to consider such as why should person who has grafted their entire life and is retired with no income, be forced to pay take on their home they have spent their entire lives paying off? What about people who bought their houses in 90's before the prices went through the roof, what if they can't on their current income afford to pay tax on their property?
I don't have a fully proofed white paper here to give you all the answers, but it could be done fairly if we just take the effort to do it.
The definition of wealth is an abundance of money or assesses (in this case). Most people do not have an abundance of wealth or assesses and cannot be considered to have wealth, even if they have an income. Id even argue that having a bit in the bank saved for a rainy day could not be considered wealth.
We are using it in the context of economics.
Economic Definition of wealth. Defined.
Offline Version: PDF
Term wealth Definition: The net ownership of material possessions and productive resources. In other words, the difference between physical and financial assets that you own and the liabilities that you owe. Wealth includes all of the tangible consumer stuff that you possess, like cars, houses, clothes, jewelry, etc.; any financial assets, like stocks, bonds, bank accounts, that you lay claim to; and your ownership of resources, including labor, capital, and natural resources. Of course, you must deduct any debts you owe.
Definition of wealth, definition at Economic Glossary
I don't think it can be. The reality of it is that you are suggesting applying tax based on citizens money and property, much of which is an accumulation of peoples lifetime savings and work.
I'm pretty left wing economically, I believe the rich should pay more towards society, but I could never get on board with that idea.
For instance a retired person maybe exempt from paying a wealth tax on one house. There are many ways that it could be balanced, but it would take a team of economists and mathematicians some time to rewrite the whole tax code, which means I couldn't give you any concrete answers, but to think it couldn't be done is nonsense.
Ok, we'll go by that definition.
How to you expect a government to assess an individuals wealth? Could we expect officials to force their way into out homes and index everything we have from our TV's to our underwear? Furthermore is that something you would like to happen?
Your talking about every element of our lives being taxed, as well as our rights to privacy.
Home insurance already does that.