Inheritance tax bill for NCPO's scrutiny

[Trouble]

Quite obvious that those TV posters who favor the inheritance tax don't have enough assets to worry about such a tax either in Thailand or their home country so of course they want to collect taxes from others, leaving no effect on themselves. This is nothing new in government strategy. That's why politicians always go after taxing the few heavily instead of the many equally. There are less complaints from the masses who are the people generally receiving the benefits.

Another point of note in the original post is the significant reduction in revenue which indicates the state of the Thai economy in general. Looks like trouble ahead if revenue continues dropping. I am sure the generals will fix the problem.

[Thai at Heart]

Quite obvious that those TV posters who favor the inheritance tax don't have enough assets to worry about such a tax either in Thailand or their home country so of course they want to collect taxes from others, leaving no effect on themselves. This is nothing new in government strategy. That's why politicians always go after taxing the few heavily instead of the many equally. There are less complaints from the masses who are the people generally receiving the benefits.

Another point of note in the original post is the significant reduction in revenue which indicates the state of the Thai economy in general. Looks like trouble ahead if revenue continues dropping. I am sure the generals will fix the problem.

Do you understand anything about the gini coefficient in Thailand and the stratification of society.

At least the rich would like there to be enough taxes to fund a police force and a court system. I mean, who will lock up the destitute thieves trying to rob them.

[manarak]

manarak said

< - >

Taking into consideration what people deserve, or how much workforce they used for taxation, is simply so wrong.

The state should not care about citizens' morality as long as citizens remain within legal boundaries.

Taxing wealth or taxing inheritance, that's not fundamentally different. The most important aspect should be reducing the wealth gap at least a little bit. It'snot a question of morality, it's a question of fairness and justness. Example? The rich would never be so rich, if they had to pay the real share of their profit to their co workers and for the state support.

I agree with you that taxing the rich is not a question of moral (as all taxing). But it's a a very legitim task for the state to reclaim money what helped to make them rich at state's/community's cost. A few of many examples: money for education, for constructing streets (especially for the big companies), in general for building an infrastructure, for establishing public safety by the police etc.

BTW, I guess the budget would nearly explode, if the new government would tax corruption money and fining both sides of illegal deals. But that requires cleaning the executive at all levels of the state departments, a task for Heracles. Undoubtedly a task of justice.

My opinion differs from yours - I consider the state to be a product of society and to be at the service of citizens.

Work alone doesn't produce money. Intelligence and connections have to be rewarded too, you make it look like profits should be shared on the base of worked hours.

Some people do not have what it takes to create or manage a scalable business and can only rent out their time and/or workforce. Others are somehow capable of organizing the work of others and to sell it too.

Attempts to change this will always fail, since the latter will then just relocate to another country where they can develop their potential, leaving the former without capable business leaders (see France).

Inheritance tax is abrupt and causes many disruptions because it is levied at a moment that often comes unexpected. Sometimes, heirs do not have the cash to pay the tax, especially when shares in corporations are concerned, or when the inheritance consists of one big chunk, such as a building for example, but not much cash.

Therefore it is my opinion that instead of inheritance tax, wealth tax should be levied: regular, plannable for, expected for, and to avoid double taxation, any wealth tax levied should be compensated with income tax, i.e. high income tax will be reduced by the wealth tax already paid, while low incomes with higher wealth tax will not have to pay tax on income.

This is the fairest system.

[icare999]

manarak said

< - >

Taking into consideration what people deserve, or how much workforce they used for taxation, is simply so wrong.

The state should not care about citizens' morality as long as citizens remain within legal boundaries.

Taxing wealth or taxing inheritance, that's not fundamentally different. The most important aspect should be reducing the wealth gap at least a little bit. It'snot a question of morality, it's a question of fairness and justness. Example? The rich would never be so rich, if they had to pay the real share of their profit to their co workers and for the state support.

I agree with you that taxing the rich is not a question of moral (as all taxing). But it's a a very legitim task for the state to reclaim money what helped to make them rich at state's/community's cost. A few of many examples: money for education, for constructing streets (especially for the big companies), in general for building an infrastructure, for establishing public safety by the police etc.

BTW, I guess the budget would nearly explode, if the new government would tax corruption money and fining both sides of illegal deals. But that requires cleaning the executive at all levels of the state departments, a task for Heracles. Undoubtedly a task of justice.

are you one of those naive enough to really believe the real rich ever pay IH tax well apart form a very very minor number let me give you news that anyone with real money knows they dont and never will. IH tax hits middle class not the rich because they can't afford or its not worth expense or simply are to stupid to use any of many many ways to avoid it. Most of ways are legal and put vast sums into hands of very rich lawyers and tax accountants some are borderline but risk is minuscule of being caught and some are totally illegal and even those have little risk of getting caught and if they do the fine is quite low compared with amount due.

The only fair taxes that work are based on consumption. We used to have a sales tax in UK which had a different rate for luxuries than basics. After all if you tax a super car at say 100% ++ and a basic ford at 0% what are rich going to do go around in basics fords I doubt it. Its down a bit with for example air fare taxes in UK but could be expanded hugely so again as an example best fillet streak has 50% tax while cheaper cuts 0% and such items as 5* hotels taxed veery high (they already do that here). The real super rich will pay and most of rest of us will have a better life.

In UK stamp duty on house over i believe 2 million is 7% and for basic homes under 120,000 0% this could be extended a lot to say ohm top homes 30% + which solves problem of someone still being able to afford to live in the house they worked for all their lives even if/when their income goes down a lot. The house I left in UK would now be 5+ million (i paid 2000 pounds for it in the war) and I could not these days even afford a small semi.

I would however still be buying fillet steak but dont care about type of car I drive. Their would be some black market but not a lot and for a lot of items like VAT it would be almost possible to avoid paying the tax.

If your going to have an IH tax make it fair and graduated not like UK 325,000 pounds (hardly super rich these days) then 40%. If it was fair and say 10% on over 1 million a lot lot more would be collected since super rich would not worry and pay huge fees to worthless non productive Lawyers and tax accountants.

but al lot fair and sensible of course