Rise in high net worth individuals

blue_steel

So much for the lie that everyone has to contribute.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0622/breaking54.html

Ireland's high net worth population rose by over 10 per cent in 2009, with an additional 1,800 Irish people becoming high net worth individuals (HNWIs).

uberwolf

so the article you reference states that the performance of Irish Individuals investment portfolios is behind that of their international peers, and yet you find that this is somehow indicative that they're not contributing?

or could there be no correlation? and simply that the historic investment trends of Irish have had a higher property leaning than most other HNWI internationally and the relative recovery in assets is not favouring them for this reason. All the while their contribution (or lack there off) is an entirely separate matter to international markets performance?

blue_steel

There are 1800 additional individuals now falling into this wealth bracket despite the fact that 2009 was the worst year for the economy in the history of the state. Everyone has to contribute. All income in this bracket should be taxed at 75%. Oh but then they'd all leave and take their invaluable skill-sets with them wouldn't they? If only we were that lucky.

Tabnabs

investable assets of $1 million

[spooky voice] My crystal ball predicts next year the figures of high net worth individuals will be lower [/spooky voice]

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

There are 1800 additional individuals now falling into this wealth bracket despite the fact that 2009 was the worst year for the economy in the history of the state. Everyone has to contribute. All income in this bracket should be taxed at 75%. Oh but then they'd all leave and take their invaluable skill-sets with them wouldn't they? If only we were that lucky.

read the article

they are measuring people over ~850K (1million us dollars) in total assets NOT yearly income

there is a huge difference, an old lady sitting in her family home in D6 would fall into this category for example

in 2009 the stockmarket had a huge rebound, anyone with alot of balls could have made a killing, while one the other hand most of these people have their wealth tied up in property assets (As the article mentions) which are dropping like a rock and lost about 50% in last two years
since they use dollars to measure also keep in mind the huge euro<>dollar swing in last few months


but lets ignore the facts and regurgitate a few socialist slogans, im sure the likes of David Begg on his 6 figure salary is frothing at his mouth now, lets not forget that this is the same guy who organized the 500m euro tax free bonanza for Eircom holders


i wonder how many of these people are leveraged up to their balls
what good is having a million in an asset when you owe the bank 1.5 million or more

needless to say the article doesnt mention the other side of the equation....

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there is a huge difference, an old lady sitting in her family home in D6 would fall into this category for example

primary residence is excluded....apart from that you are correct...this is not about high income people..although obviously many will probably be in both categories

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

primary residence is excluded....apart from that you are correct...this is not about high income people..although obviously many will probably be in both categories

yes that's true,

see my note about debt not being counted either
3-4 years ago it wasnt particularly hard to get into 7 figure debts (hell average home in Dublin was going for almost half a million), i certainly wouldn't call these people high net worth individuals, more like debt junkies

blue_steel

Why shouldn't wealth be taxed? Outside of a primary residence all assets should be liable to tax.

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

Why shouldn't wealth be taxed? Outside of a primary residence all assets should be liable to tax.

hello capital gains

blue_steel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hello capital gains

Thats only liable when the asset is cashed in.

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

Thats only liable when the asset is cashed in.

hello property tax

blue_steel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hello property tax

Ha ha. €200 euro. Thats really hitting the rich where it hurts.
ANYONE with a second home pays that. Want to try again?

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i wonder how many of these people are leveraged up to their balls
what good is having a million in an asset when you owe the bank 1.5 million or more

Net worth?

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

Ha ha. €200 euro. Thats really hitting the rich where it hurts.
ANYONE with a second home pays that. Want to try again?

see parallel thread, property taxes are coming in one way or another

anyways what good is owning assets like stocks or property if you are not gonna cash them in at some stage before you die (And if you do die before you get to spend your wealth, there are inheritance taxes), last i checked you cant barter stocks for groceries in a shop, and there is also stamp duty taxes beside capital gains on some assets

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Net worth?

the study doesnt count the liabilities of these individuals (where would the study get this data anyways, not like banks are eager to handover liabilities of individual people, just look at how hard it is to get figures out of Anglo), owning a million to the bank doesn't make one a millionaire

blue_steel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

see parallel thread, property taxes are coming in one way or another

anyways what good is owning assets like stocks or property if you are not gonna cash them in at some stage before you die (And if you do die before you get to spend your wealth, there are inheritance taxes), last i checked you cant barter stocks for groceries in a shop, and there is also stamp duty taxes beside capital gains on some assets

True but my point is that all these taxes hit everyone. If a property tax comes in we'll all be paying it. I think people with over (lets say) €1 million in assets should be liable to a wealth tax that Joe Public isn't.

ei.sdraob

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eapn.ie%2Feapn%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2FBank-of-Ireland-Wealth-of-Nation-Report-2007.pdf

33,000 euro (what was the dollar exchange rate in 2006) Millionaires in 2006 according to this hilarious BOI document

thats a 40-50% drop

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the study doesnt count the liabilities of these individuals (where would the study get this data anyways, not like banks are eager to handover liabilities of individual people, just look at how hard it is to get figures out of Anglo), owning a million to the bank doesn't make one a millionaire

Net worth = Assets - liabilities.

From the article:
"In 2009, there were 18,100 HNWIs in Ireland, defined as having investable assets of $1 million or more, bringing the total up from 16,300in 2008. Also in 2009, a further 18 Irish “ultra-HNWIs”, defined as having investable assets of $30 million or more,were created, bringing the total up to 181."

If someone has a mortgage of 1 million on a house that has a market value of 1 million, then their net worth is zero. Their "investable assets" are also zero.

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

True but my point is that all these taxes hit everyone. If a property tax comes in we'll all be paying it. I think people with over (lets say) €1 million in assets should be liable to a wealth tax that Joe Public isn't.

Ok heres a typical scenario

* Capitalist Pig Murphy goes to the bank(s) / venture funds and raises 1 million for his new company (boards.com ) which has great prospects and profitability due to a lucrative partnership with Google Ads

* Capitalist Pig Murphy hires 10 people to run the business/site :P

* Capitalist Pig Murphy on paper (company shares) is worth 1 million or more, but he owes the bank(s) 1 million + interest etc

* Capitalist Pig Murphy is suddenly charged a 10%-20% wealth tax on his "wealth"

* Capitalist Pig Murphy fires his staff and moves to a sunnier less taxing shores, and creates jobs there


need I continue? or will the Pinko Socialist Blue Steel build a wall around the country to keep him in??

ei.sdraob

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Net worth = Assets - liabilities.

From the article:
"In 2009, there were 18,100 HNWIs in Ireland, defined as having investable assets of $1 million or more, bringing the total up from 16,300in 2008. Also in 2009, a further 18 Irish “ultra-HNWIs”, defined as having investable assets of $30 million or more,were created, bringing the total up to 181."

If someone has a mortgage of 1 million on a house that has a market value of 1 million, then their net worth is zero. Their "investable assets" are also zero.

There are other ways of getting into debt beside mortgages. these people could have business loans invested in companies, and they are worth 1 million on paper shares, but the company/him are still in deep debt

Once again how would the crowd who made the survey know the exact liabilities of ~16000 people? where would you get this data, neither the banks nor the people will hand over such information

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* Capitalist Pig Murphy on paper (company shares) is worth 1 million or more, but he owes the bank(s) 1 million + interest etc

Incorrect, because the subject says "high net worth individuals".

If Murphy owns a company worth €1m but owes €1m, then his net worth is zero.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect, because the subject says "high net worth individuals".

If Murphy owns a company worth €1m but owes €1m, then his net worth is zero.

See post above yours

how in gods name would one go about getting the individual liabilities of people, in order to gather data for this survey

thats the sort of information thats tightly guarded

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

See post above yours

how in gods name would one go about getting the individual liabilities of people, in order to gather data for this survey

thats the sort of information thats tightly guarded

I presume they made some sort of a stab at estimating individuals liabilities, otherwise they would not have used the term Net Worth.

ei.sdraob

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

I presume they made some sort of a stab at estimating individuals liabilities, otherwise they would not have used the term Net Worth.

"42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot." -- Steven Wrigh

if you are taking those figures as a "given" then its wrong to claim that there is a "rise" since there was 50% more HNWI few years earlier

@blue_Steel wants to use this report in order to advocate a wealth tax

should I use this and the earlier BOI report to advocate a cut in taxes then?

see nonsense based on fluff

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

See post above yours

how in gods name would one go about getting the individual liabilities of people, in order to gather data for this survey

thats the sort of information thats tightly guarded

If that's the case, then they shouldn't have used the term "net" worth.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If that's the case, then they shouldn't have used the term "net" worth.

There's definitely some sort of funny maths going on here

Yes there are rich people in this country, but these are the same people who will either leave or move their wealth if pushed to hard, this could lead to job-losses and thats the last thing we need now
1% of the richest people are paying 25% of taxes, no matter how much you might hate capitalism, thats the 1% that you dont want to see leave the country

tho i suppose when one looks at the world thru rose tinted glasses

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes there are rich people in this country, but these are the same people who will either leave or move their wealth if pushed to hard, this could lead to job-losses and thats the last thing we need now
1% of the richest people are paying 25% of taxes, no matter how much you might hate capitalism, thats the 1% that you dont want to see leave the country

tho i suppose when one looks at the world thru rose tinted glasses

it depends on your definition of 'rich'


there have been calls for extra taxes on those earning voer €100,000 or €150,000


I would not necessarily put such people in an uber-wealthy millionaire bracket

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if you are taking those figures as a "given" then its wrong to claim that there is a "rise" since there was 50% more HNWI few years earlier

It says the number of HNWI rose by 10% in 2009 and is now back at 2005 levels.

Obviously the study is based on net worth, i.e. assets - liabilities. You might doubt some aspects of methodology or accuracy but nevertheless that's what it is.

blue_steel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ok heres a typical scenario

* Capitalist Pig Murphy goes to the bank(s) / venture funds and raises 1 million for his new company (boards.com ) which has great prospects and profitability due to a lucrative partnership with Google Ads

* Capitalist Pig Murphy hires 10 people to run the business/site :P

* Capitalist Pig Murphy on paper (company shares) is worth 1 million or more, but he owes the bank(s) 1 million + interest etc

* Capitalist Pig Murphy is suddenly charged a 10%-20% wealth tax on his "wealth"

* Capitalist Pig Murphy fires his staff and moves to a sunnier less taxing shores, and creates jobs there


need I continue? or will the Pinko Socialist Blue Steel build a wall around the country to keep him in??

Ok my turn:

* Joe Public saves hard and buys a nice house paying 30K stamp duty.
* Joe Public gets a pay cut cos Capitalist Pig Murphy believes in nothing other than the free market and although his company is making a profit everone else is cutting wages so why shouldn't he?
* Joe public then gets hit with a property tax which means he falls behind with his mortgage.
* After making him feel like a leper the bank finally allow Joe Public to reduce his mortgage payments - the only catch being he'll be paying it for 10 yrs longer.
* Joe Public goes cap in hand to Capitalist Pig Murphy and asks for a raise because business seems to be good but he's told he doesn't understand basic economics and doesn't he realise there's a recession on.
* Joe Public's bank increases interest rates. Joe wonders why his tax money is bailing them out while they continue to screw him. But his friend Right Wing Small Man Syndrome tells him to look on the bright side - at least the wealth creators haven't left.

This game is fun

Riskymove

The methodology

The World Wealth Report covers 71 countries in the market-sizing model, accounting for more than 98% of global gross national income and 99% of world stock market capitalization. We estimate the size and growth of wealth in various regions using the Capgemini Lorenz curve methodology,
which was originally developed during consulting engagements with Merrill Lynch in the 1980s. It is updated on an annual basis to calculate the value of HNWI financial wealth at a macro level.

The model is built in two stages: first, the estimation of total wealth by country, and second, the distribution of this wealth across the adult population in that country. Total wealth levels by country are estimated using
national account statistics from recognized sources, such as the international Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to identify the total amount of national savings in each year. These are summed over time to arrive at total
accumulated country wealth. As this captures financial assets at book value, the final figures are adjusted based on world stock indexes to reflect the market value of the equity portion of HNWI wealth. In conjunction with the Economist Intelligence Unit’s efforts to provide the most accurate data, select historical figures have been updated since publication in previous reports.

In 2005, we revised the methodology to move from reporting only annual regional findings to include country level information. Wealth distribution, which differs by country, is based on formulized relationships between
wealth and income. Data on income distribution is provided by the World Bank, Global Insight, Economist Intelligence Unit and by countries’ national statistics. We then use the resulting Lorenz curves to distribute wealth across the adult population in each country. To arrive at financial wealth as a proportion of total wealth, we use statistics from countries with available data to calculate their financial wealth figures and extrapolated these findings to the rest of the world. Each year, we continue to enhance our macroeconomic model with increased analysis of domestic economic factors that influence wealth creation. We work with colleagues around the globe from several firms to best account for the impact of domestic, fiscal and monetary policies over time on HNWI wealth generation.

The financial asset wealth figures we publish include the values of private equity holdings stated at book value as well as all forms of publicly quoted equities, bonds, funds and cash deposits. It excludes collectibles,
consumables, consumer durables and real estate used for primary residences. Offshore investments are theoretically accounted for, but only insofar as countries are able to make accurate estimates of relative flows of
property and investment in and out of their jurisdictions. We account for undeclared savings in the report.

Given exchange rate fluctuations over recent years, especially with respect to the U.S. dollar, we assess the impact of currency fluctuations on our results. From our analysis, we conclude that our methodology is robust
and exchange rate fluctuations do not have a significant impact on the results.

The translation to U.S. dollars is made using a yearly average exchange rate. The WWR model calculates cumulative wealth in U.S. dollar terms using a time series of data going back over 100 years, so the impact of a
sharp currency appreciation for a year or two has a negligible impact.

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

it depends on your definition of 'rich'


there have been calls for extra taxes on those earning voer €100,000 or €150,000


I would not necessarily put such people in an uber-wealthy millionaire bracket

there was something like 80,000 people in 2007 (last time cso released these stats) in the 100,000+ bracket, probably alot less now

charging them a new tax rate a la Labour style of 50% will bring in **** all extra money

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

Ok my turn:

* Joe Public saves hard and buys a nice house paying 30K stamp duty.
* Joe Public gets a pay cut cos Capitalist Pig Murphy believes in nothing other than the free market and although his company is making a profit everone else is cutting wages so why shouldn't he?
* Joe public then gets hit with a property tax which means he falls behind with his mortgage.
* After making him feel like a leper the bank finally allow Joe Public to reduce his mortgage payments - the only catch being he'll be paying it for 10 yrs longer.
* Joe Public goes cap in hand to Capitalist Pig Murphy and asks for a raise because business seems to be good but he's told he doesn't understand basic economics and doesn't he realise there's a recession on.
* Joe Public's bank increases interest rates. Joe wonders why his tax money is bailing them out while they continue to screw him. But his friend Right Wing Small Man Syndrome tells him to look on the bright side - at least the wealth creators haven't left.

This game is fun

You missed the part of Joe Public loosing his job and ending up in welfare (putting higher strain on remaining taxpayers) because the Capitalist Pig Murphy was pushed out of doing business in the country by Pinko Socialists

you might think that Capitalist Pig Murphy is evil and unfair, but I see him as a necessary evil to create jobs and prosperity, since the government are too incompetent and corrupt to ever startup a profitable business likes boards.com

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

The methodology

Jesus Christ

they are using Irish GDP figures divided per population and adjusted for wealth distribution to measure net worth :eek:

yeh that would work great in Ireland where our GDP figures are distorted by multinationals laundering money thru the country

i always chuckle when i see GDP per capita of 42K

btw that similar to what BOI used, but if you read the "wealth of nations" report linked on earlier page you would see its a load of utter rubbish

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1% of the richest people are paying 25% of taxes, no matter how much you might hate capitalism, thats the 1% that you dont want to see leave the country

Those earning over 500k pay about 30% tax according to official department of finance figures, up from 20% in 2007.

The fact that the top 1% pay 25% tax is a function of the vast income inequality and concentration of private wealth.

So who do you want to see pay the tax? The PAYE worker? Somone on 50K pays about 35% of their income in tax. Now factor in further tax hikes, water charges, property tax, interest rate hikes to help out the banks, reduction in tax reliefs, health insurance increases, fuel costs, etc.

The working poor can only take so much.

ei.sdraob

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Those earning over 500k pay about 30% tax according to official department of finance figures, up from 20% in 2007.

The fact that the top 1% pay 25% tax is a function of the vast income inequality and concentration of private wealth.

So who do you want to see pay the tax? The PAYE worker? Somone on 50K pays about 36% of their income in tax. Now factor in further tax hikes, water charges, property tax, interest rate hikes to help out the banks, reduction in tax reliefs, health insurance increases, fuel costs, etc.

The working poor can only take so much.

How about not spending wasting as much in the first place

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You missed the part of Joe Public loosing his job and ending up in welfare (putting higher strain on remaining taxpayers) because the Capitalist Pig Murphy was pushed out of doing business in the country by Pinko Socialists

You forgot the bit where capitalist pig Murphy lobbied the government for light touch regulation and unbridled free market capitalism only to lead to an almight crash (as economic theory would predict), causing great hardship for hundreds of thousands of people.

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you might think that Capitalist Pig Murphy is evil and unfair, but I see him as a necessary evil to create jobs and prosperity, since the government are too incompetent and corrupt to ever startup a profitable business likes boards.com

And, of course, the capitalists that start up "banks" like Anglo Irish are so competent and "un-corrupt" ?

Tipp Man

blue_steel wrote: »

True but my point is that all these taxes hit everyone. If a property tax comes in we'll all be paying it. I think people with over (lets say) €1 million in assets should be liable to a wealth tax that Joe Public isn't.

What a crock of crap

Taking just 1 example there are loads (thousands) of farmers across this little island of ours who have land worth more than 1 million but they are struggling to make ends meet, hell last year some were struggling to the basic essential bills paid

Should they have to pay a wealth tax, and if so then how would they fund it??

This applies to loads of smaller businesses across the country. People in this country want to tax people who make sacrifices and invest, create jobs, employment etc, so that the royalty of the public service employee can be maintained

ei.sdraob

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

You forgot the bit where capitalist pig Murphy lobbied the government for light touch regulation and unbridled free market capitalism only to lead to an almight crash (as economic theory would predict), causing great hardship for hundreds of thousands of people.

If you read my past posts you would know well that i am against lobbying (dont forget the Unions are the most powerful lobby now, holding the state hostage) and giving tax breaks



anyways @George Orwell 1982 regarding you previous post
why dont we just print more money (aint that your answer for everything all the time? :P)

and make everyone poorer richer equally

that would surely fix the gaping deficit hole

Tipp Man

Riskymove wrote: »

it depends on your definition of 'rich'


there have been calls for extra taxes on those earning voer €100,000 or €150,000


I would not necessarily put such people in an uber-wealthy millionaire bracket

That kind of income is certainly not uber wealthy, sur aren't all of the union leaders in this country in that pay range, how is that socially acceptable??

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And, of course, the capitalists that start up "banks" like Anglo Irish are so competent and "un-corrupt" ?

If their risks werent socialized then they would have failed and payed for their incompetence

incompetent and corrupt businesses fail and go bankrupt
there was no need to bail them out...

Tipp Man wrote: »

That kind of income is certainly not uber wealthy, sur aren't all of the union leaders in this country in that pay range, how is that socially acceptable??

dont forget thats the same union leaders that sat on certain bank boards...

Scarab80

blue_steel wrote: »

Why shouldn't wealth be taxed? Outside of a primary residence all assets should be liable to tax.

Because wealth has already been taxed when the money was earned. It's like going out and earning €100, the government coming along and taking €50 of that in tax and then turning around and going hold on you still have €50 - we want some of that!

Tipp Man

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Those earning over 500k pay about 30% tax according to official department of finance figures, up from 20% in 2007.

The fact that the top 1% pay 25% tax is a function of the vast income inequality and concentration of private wealth.

So who do you want to see pay the tax? The PAYE worker? Somone on 50K pays about 35% of their income in tax. Now factor in further tax hikes, water charges, property tax, interest rate hikes to help out the banks, reduction in tax reliefs, health insurance increases, fuel costs, etc.

The working poor can only take so much.

Then why not tackle the government expenditure side of things, like the 45 billion that they spend on social welfare and the public sector

And by tackle I mean a proper full blooded spear tackle, not a little tap on the shoulder

blue_steel

Tipp Man wrote: »

What a crock of crap

Taking just 1 example there are loads (thousands) of farmers across this little island of ours who have land worth more than 1 million but they are struggling to make ends meet, hell last year some were struggling to the basic essential bills paid

Should they have to pay a wealth tax, and if so then how would they fund it??

This applies to loads of smaller businesses across the country. People in this country want to tax people who make sacrifices and invest, create jobs, employment etc, so that the royalty of the public service employee can be maintained

Their land is worth 1 million? Where is this magical land? So it's poor farmers you're worried about is it? Ok I'll exempt farming land from the Wealth Tax. Problem solved, lets get back to taxing the rich.

Scarab80

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Those earning over 500k pay about 30% tax according to official department of finance figures, up from 20% in 2007.

The fact that the top 1% pay 25% tax is a function of the vast income inequality and concentration of private wealth.

So who do you want to see pay the tax? The PAYE worker? Somone on 50K pays about 35% of their income in tax. Now factor in further tax hikes, water charges, property tax, interest rate hikes to help out the banks, reduction in tax reliefs, health insurance increases, fuel costs, etc.

The working poor can only take so much.

Have you got a link for those figures. I remember an analysis of income tax break down was on these boards but i can't find it now. However i do remember that along with the top earners paying the most in tax in absolute terms they also paid a higher percentage of their earnings in tax than the lower paid.

blue_steel

Scarab80 wrote: »

Because wealth has already been taxed when the money was earned. It's like going out and earning €100, the government coming along and taking €50 of that in tax and then turning around and going hold on you still have €50 - we want some of that!

Eh that happens to PAYE workers anyway! VAT, road tax, refuse charges etc etc etc

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

Their land is worth 1 million? Where is this magical land? So it's poor farmers you're worried about is it? .

10-20K an acre nowadays (used to be about 4x that) thats a million for 100 acres, excluding the cost of machinery and building of course

blue_steel wrote: »

Ok I'll exempt farming land from the Wealth Tax. Problem solved, lets get back to taxing the rich.

the "rich" become farmers then :P problem solved

hinault

I have my doubts regarding this survey.

Would the likes of Bernard McNamara, for example, be regarded as a HNWI?
Many of these people may on paper have assets, but their liabilities are never disclosed.
Sean Quinn would be another.

Interesting Liam Lawlors will went through probate recently.
Far from being HNWI, he had zero wealth because of a Revenue Commissioner judgement on his estate.


This country needs to try to create a viable middle class.
By that I mean that the middle class should account for more people than in the poorer/richer classes.
As it is, the disparity between the very rich and very poor is growing.
A worrying trend.

ei.sdraob

blue_steel wrote: »

Eh that happens to PAYE workers anyway! VAT, road tax, refuse charges etc etc etc

and the "rich" dont pay any of these?

what happens if one of your workers decides to start a business and employ other workers

is he now suddenly a "pig"

Tipp Man

blue_steel wrote: »

Their land is worth 1 million? Where is this magical land? So it's poor farmers you're worried about is it? Ok I'll exempt farming land from the Wealth Tax. Problem solved, lets get back to taxing the rich.

Its not just farmers, its all kinds of businesses - shopkeepers who often own their premises, would you tax them?? Would you put the local shopkeeper at a disadvantage by having to pay tax on the value of his shop while Tesco's don't thereby putting him at a further disadvantage when he's pricing his milk and bread?

You have no clue how things (business) actually works as I would imagine its fair to say you have never had anything to do with running/owning a business

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

You have no clue how things (business) actually works as I would imagine its fair to say you have never had anything to do with running/owning a business

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” - Thomas Sowell

blue_steel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the "rich" become farmers then :P problem solved

Farming land not farmers.