Pros :
> Rich people (>10 millions £) continue to accumulate assets, making life really hard for families
> This kind of stuff already happened several times in history (see Gracchi brothers agrarian reforms), nothing new under the sun
> It's relatively easy to implement as this targets real estate or British mortgages (insert *my country* instead of Britain)

Cons :
> What's supposed to be a "wealth tax" on families with more than 10 millions of net assets will have a threshold of 9 millions the next year, 8 millions the year after ... and 50£ in 15 years
> Still no clear explanation of how this is supposed to be redistributed. Agrarian reforms were straighforward : land taken from the patricians and given to soldiers. Here we'll have a complex system to channel money into a dark hole without any material redistribution of the houses

>spamming this retard again
"wealth tax" - is a very vague tax proposal. If you want to change tax policy, you need to be specific. We already have taxes for property, income and even sale of goods. So what new kind of tax is this specifically?

Do you even know why it's vague like this? Do you really think it's an accident? It's so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean. It means there's no way to hold them accountable for any kind of tax policy decision.

Your money supply is being counterfeited at an exponential rate. You live under an occupational government that's so bad can't even condemn shooting starving children in the head. You are being replaced.

>tax da rich innit
So your plan is to listen to this NGO fucker, who is being promoted by JewTube, who is promoting the exact same vague bullshit in legacy media, proud to brag about it. "wealth tax" has been around for decades, and it's always popular with the elites because it means whatever they want it to mean, which is always tax their enemies.

Figure out whatever the ratio of average income to average home price was for boomers, then subsidize mortgages for first time primary residence buyers to achieve that ratio. Pay for it via taxing the assets of those above a certain net worth. If you want to complain that this just represents a transfer of wealth from one set of private hands to another, then use the money for a state house building program instead

>>510663694
i'd rather pay for it by selling electricity generated from turbines driven by steam from burning jewish childrens corpses

Honestly dont know. One thing is true and that's everyone will fight to pay as little as possible, but usually only the wealthy have political representation. If Hitler had won there's no doubt the white race would be very civilized and not leaving anyone behind. Pair that vision with the endless migrant/outsourcing/offshoring/anything i dont like is hate speech world we enjoy

>>510662523
True about the lack of condemnation for that specific issue. That's a great real life example

>>510661668 (OP)
Dumb

1. You don't want buerocrats meddling in the private sector as employees

2. You won't just give everyone 0.02 sqm of tesco and a quarter shelf and a piece of a truck

So the most non intrusive way will be something like: "everything above 10 million net worth will become nationalized stock"

Now remember rule 1. No meddling of state employees = stock without voting rights

Lets say 10 million is 1%, state "owns" 99%

What does a 99% ownership mean?

-> State gets 99% of profit

So what would this complex "transfer of ownership" accomplish what a 99% tax couldn't?