If you’re expecting fixing a single loophole in tax law will solve all those problems at once, I’ve got some bad news for you.
But obviously that’s no reason to leave a loophole there. As I said, any expert in tax law will tell you that it’s stupid not to have a CGT. And I’ve never heard a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets.
I think it will fix a tax hole that encourages investing in non-productive assets, which will improve our economy by increasing investment into productive assets.
Have a think about this - given that experts in the field all believe that we should have a CGT, what do you know that they don’t? Do you know of a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets?
On a side note: You’ll have a much easier time understanding the world if you realise not everything is black and white. Outlawing murder didn’t fix all our societal woes, but that’s doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
I think it will fix a tax hole that encourages investing in non-productive assets, which will improve our economy by increasing investment into productive assets.
What do you mean by " investing in non productive assets"? Can you give some examples?
I think it will fix a tax hole that encourages investing in non-productive assets, which will improve our economy by increasing investment into productive assets.
Has it done this in other countries when it was introduced?
Have a think about this - given that experts in the field all believe that we should have a CGT, what do you know that they don’t?
This is economics. For every “expert” there is an equal and opposite “expert”. What do you know that the opposing experts don’t?
Outlawing murder didn’t fix all our societal woes, but that’s doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
it did fix some of our societal laws. This was demonstrated in places where it was outlawed.
If you’re expecting fixing a single loophole in tax law will solve all those problems at once, I’ve got some bad news for you.
But obviously that’s no reason to leave a loophole there. As I said, any expert in tax law will tell you that it’s stupid not to have a CGT. And I’ve never heard a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets.
My point is that it hasn’t done what you are claiming it’s going to do. So what’s the use of it?
What am I claiming it will do?
Fix our economic woes? Raise the tax take? Provide better public services? Make the tax system fair?
Any of those?
If not then feel free to tell me what you think it’s going to accomplish.
I think it will fix a tax hole that encourages investing in non-productive assets, which will improve our economy by increasing investment into productive assets.
Have a think about this - given that experts in the field all believe that we should have a CGT, what do you know that they don’t? Do you know of a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets?
On a side note: You’ll have a much easier time understanding the world if you realise not everything is black and white. Outlawing murder didn’t fix all our societal woes, but that’s doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
What do you mean by " investing in non productive assets"? Can you give some examples?
Has it done this in other countries when it was introduced?
This is economics. For every “expert” there is an equal and opposite “expert”. What do you know that the opposing experts don’t?
it did fix some of our societal laws. This was demonstrated in places where it was outlawed.
Do you know of a remotely convincing argument for having a hole that encourages investment in non-productive assets?
Define “investment in non productive assets”.