Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
Problem is then defining high net worth. Say you live in a property you bought cheap many years back in an area that has become "desirable" so increased disproportionately in value you may have high worth but you are cash poor why should you pay for that? Or you bought a wreck, worked on it over many years, invested in it (paying tax on all that work), looked after it so again it has high worth?
It seems to be a pretty leftist idea to tax success.
|
You start with a good argument and then you spoilt with a lazy "pretty leftist idea to tax success" cliché. Being lucky in when & where you buy a house is not "earned success". Do you "earn" a lottery win? Of course not. We bought our house in 1993 and it is now worth nearly 10x the initial amount. Did I "earn" this, of course not.
Anyway, you are setting the bar too low. I would define high net worth at, let's say £3 million in total asset valuation. I would then argue that any high net worth individual should pay the same effective tax rate as you and I i.e. P.A.Y.E tax payers, on the increase of their net worth.