In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> What do people think? One of the biggest problems in society is wealth locked up in land and passed down through families.
as mentioned- idiocy. If you can't think of a long list of bigger problems you live a very sheltered life or have just suffered a severe head trauma
> This then gives some children a ludicrously disproportionate advantage over others,
yeah ok you could argue that. Though there are other things that are important for a child to develop too you know.
> stopping the vast majority realising their full potential.
er...why? If you've apparently given them such a huge advantage how does that equate to them not reaching their potential? And what do we consider to be their potential? I'm sure a lot of rich kids might say "ok so I didn't win a nobel prize but I've had a great life with little stress and been able to provide for MY kids without scraping for money, that's more than most people".
> Such a tax would encourage much more productive spending, mean money only went to those who earned it and greatly improve our current housing prices.
now you're getting things confused. Are you suggesting that the state also take houses away when people die? or are you suggesting that all the buy to let landlords out there were born with riches?
>
> Obviously gifts to children would also have to be taxed and spending on private education.
>
> The money obviously has no more obvious recipient than the state that made earning possible. So why shouldn't we do this? The only thing I can think of is that people may be less productive in old age.
>
so you work hard all your life to provide for your children then the state takes your money? Surely what would actually happen is people would blow their money on holidays and the like instead if there was no point in saving? And how is that fare to say "yo kids, you've grown up in that nice house but now you're going to receive NOTHING and have to go rent a hovel for several years until you can build up enough to pay a deposit on a house". Do you really think that's a better way?
Oh and the state already gets a large slice of the money.
> The benefits being: many more people achieving their economic potential,
as above - this is an utterly baseless assumption and deciding for everyone that the worth of their life is purely an econimic one
> lower income taxes and better public services.
also a no as mentioned above. The way people use their money, and quite possibly the way they're paid would change to match the new system. For example would big pensions for CEOs carry on or would other benefits be more inviting? Would we want 100% of our wages or would we trade in some of it for benefits that couldn't be taxed?
A further positive outcome would be watch adverts featuring well dressed Swiss fathers and sons would no longer exist.
>
> Come on right wing nutjobs its time to argue for those people far richer and successful than yourselves.
I don't think this has anything to do with left or right wing. I think you're spouting a pile of crap you haven't bothered to remotely think through.