3 ms·

You're kidding me, right? Currently, you would be taxed 40% of that 100k. So immediately you would only have 60k. Whatever you do with that: spend it, invest i

by rayhano 14y ago

You're kidding me, right? Currently, you would be taxed 40% of that 100k. So immediately you would only have 60k. Whatever you do with that: spend it, invest it, you only start with 60k, even though your earned 100k. And most likely, you will diversify... spend some, invest some, save some.

sjtgraham 14y ago
Firstly, not everyone pays PAYE. Having an accountant and structuring your finances in a tax efficient manner is not the preserve of the super rich. What you describe is a perpetual tax. Cash exchanged for goods of value or other financial instruments still have intrinsic value. Anything classed as an asset would be taxed in perpetuity. I'm sorry, right now I think your proposal is absolutely absurd. If you earn and invest in the same tax year would you be taxed twice? How does your model handle depreciation? What about property? Can debt finance, e.g. a mortgage, be offset from your taxable assets? There are so many unanswered questions (and these are what popped into mind with 5 seconds thought) I have to ask, is it you who is kidding?