You are reading a single comment by @GoatandTricycle and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
You’d have to get stricter with so many other elements of taxation I don’t see how it could be viable, better should never be the enemy of perfect and we seem to be heading in a direction that might need radical reform.
There would be loads of unintended consequences on the labour market, which could be both positive and negative admittedly.
GoatandTricycle
Some sort of deferral rule until the youngest is 21yo would probably sort that.
Also you should probably have some sort of life insurance to cover this. Which then begs the question of how you legislate against the very wealthy using adapted life insurance wrappers to transfer wealth.
Well in this hypothetical you already have a working UBI.
I get there are issues with the laffer curve, but I think the principle probably applies to tax avoidance. anecdotally I know that mainstream CT avoidance products became almost impossible to sell when the rate dropped. The cost of setting up the schemes + a margin for the operators meant the savings weren't worth the potential hassle. So I think there has to be an element of reality in what you hoose to implement and when.