Taxing the rich: It's tough. That's why it must be done

[robblok]

So your a bit biased since being a life long salary worker

It's understandable. Everybody prefer some one else to pay.

This why my principle point is less tax for everybody.

Capital gains on sale would at least be more acceptable than inheritance and gift tax; coz one isn't making any money; only transferring what you as a family already had. Takes no account of income or means to pay. Just strait out theft. Not a cut of the productive efforts; which is kinda reasonable. But I can't see inheritance tax as at all reasonable.

Im not a life long salary worker.. I was at one time.. then became self employed. There is only one bias person.

Less tax.. such a nice pipe dream.. but big projects would not happen.. better roads better electricity.. better environment.. it does not happen without tax.

[mccw]

Thailand already has good roads and can do plenty with out adding new tax areas.

You seem to want to turn Thailand in to high tax high spend Europe.

Did you see Europe spending? Most of it is on various forms of welfare and health,

With less of that it could easily do away with inheritance tax and capital gains tax too.

Check it out in UK for example ; inheritance tax take is about half the annual spend on foreign aid.

It's not bias ; it's a preference for freedom and culture of entrepreneurship rather than nanny state benefits lay abouts.

I would say eliminate the lower brackets of income tax too.

Instead have higher luxury taxes and financial transaction tax on banking; share dealing etc.

then you hit the real money; and leave most small biz, low and medium wage, farmers etc all out of the tax system completely.

Finance tax may need to be only very minor given the volumes and amounts involved.

So your a bit biased since being a life long salary worker

It's understandable. Everybody prefer some one else to pay.

This why my principle point is less tax for everybody.

Capital gains on sale would at least be more acceptable than inheritance and gift tax; coz one isn't making any money; only transferring what you as a family already had. Takes no account of income or means to pay. Just strait out theft. Not a cut of the productive efforts; which is kinda reasonable. But I can't see inheritance tax as at all reasonable.

Im not a life long salary worker.. I was at one time.. then became self employed. There is only one bias person.

Less tax.. such a nice pipe dream.. but big projects would not happen.. better roads better electricity.. better environment.. it does not happen without tax.

[robblok]

Thailand already has good roads and can do plenty with out adding new tax areas.

You seem to want to turn Thailand in to high tax high spend Europe.

Did you see Europe spending? Most of it is on various forms of welfare and health,

With less of that it could easily do away with inheritance tax and capital gains tax too.

Check it out in UK for example ; inheritance tax take is about half the annual spend on foreign aid.

It's not bias ; it's a preference for freedom and culture of entrepreneurship rather than nanny state benefits lay abouts.

I would say eliminate the lower brackets of income tax too.

Instead have higher luxury taxes and financial transaction tax on banking; share dealing etc.

then you hit the real money; and leave most small biz, low and medium wage, farmers etc all out of the tax system completely.

Finance tax may need to be only very minor given the volumes and amounts involved.

So your a bit biased since being a life long salary worker

It's understandable. Everybody prefer some one else to pay.

This why my principle point is less tax for everybody.

Capital gains on sale would at least be more acceptable than inheritance and gift tax; coz one isn't making any money; only transferring what you as a family already had. Takes no account of income or means to pay. Just strait out theft. Not a cut of the productive efforts; which is kinda reasonable. But I can't see inheritance tax as at all reasonable.

Im not a life long salary worker.. I was at one time.. then became self employed. There is only one bias person.

Less tax.. such a nice pipe dream.. but big projects would not happen.. better roads better electricity.. better environment.. it does not happen without tax.

I don't want to turn Thailand into anything that is up to the Thais. But good roads.. hahahahahah.... compare them with Dutch roads. Then you see what you tax pays. No what i want is a fairer tax base all the articles that have been posted over the years show there is no fair tax system here and now this is changing it. They are dropping the income tax a bit and getting it from rich people. Sounds good to me.

[mccw]

The roads in the UK are falling apart full of pot holes but our taxes are much higher and wider ranging. Many towns can't afford to keep the street lights on! While Thailand is expanding them every time I go for a drive; more big roads going in and street lighting. Thai national debt around 46% compare to UK 80% ish.

What's going on? UK has such great taxes and so fair system to tax such a bit wide base.

[Johpa]

MCCW, I understand and can relate to most of what you said but how is it that capitalism has anything to do with taxes? Freedom (in the United States at least) began as a rebellion against taxes. It has always puzzled me that capitalism has become a curse word in many European countries. Although it probably shouldn't puzzle me since socialism has been so embraced there. The definition of capitalism I'm familiar with has to do with earning money and getting paid what the market will bear and keeping what you've earned. If anything taxes are used most often as a socialist tool for redistributing wealth, and used in that way they certainly have nothing to do with true capitalism. .

The revolt by the US colonies was not a rebellion against taxes in general but against taxation without representation. This arose from taxes initiated in England to protect that great proto-corporation, the British East Indian Trading Corporation, whose major stockholders included members of the Royal House as well as the House of Lords. The Boston Tea Party was aimed at the monopoly that that the British government tax regulations bestowed upon the British East Indian Trading Corporation. And many of the colonists remained pro-monarchists until nearly the end. Many of the founding fathers of the US were in favor of progressive taxation, such as estate and inheritance taxes, as the best way to prevent the accumulation of capital, and thus power, into the hands of a few as they saw the accumulation of such power as represented by the House of Lords to be antithetical to their concept of a functional democracy. They did not see such taxation as redistribution of wealth, and it certainly has nothing to do with socialism, a really ridiculous claim made by some.

[hawker9000]

Depends if your talking about the numbers of people paying tax as the base

Or the variation of taxes applied.

If the new taxes are only targeted at the "rich" then these are the same people already paying the lions share.

So I'd call that increasing the burden on the existing tax paying population base.

Apples and pears ; call it what you like.

Absolutely not true salary workers ate paying the most taxes the rich avoid those by not having a salary on paper. You should read up on why this is done.

As for the comments on spending money better and eliminating corruption. One does not exclude the other. I agree that this should be done too. The idea is to take some of the burdon of the muddle class of salary workers and tax the rich who avoid paying a salary so they dont have to pay tax.

There are serious holes in the current system this is one way to fix them.

So income in the Netherlands is taxed only if it's salary income? Hmmm, let's just dig into that a little, shall we?

What I'm seeing with just a little bit of online research ("reading up" as you like to call it) is that Holland has: (1) a progressive tax of from 5.85% to 52% (!) on wages ; (2) a flat tax of 25% (!) on income from a substantial business interest (generally, any sharehold of at least 5%); and (3) a flat tax on savings & investments (and that's on their VALUE, NOT the income!). And all this does not include a national health insurance premium! So it sure sounds like the rich get taxed, and well-taxed actually, even if not earning a salary.

Gee, as a tax accountant, I'd have thought you'd know that. Or maybe you just didn't want to go beyond your half-truth...