"At this time tomorrow, dad will have taken your money." "Vid den här tiden imorgon kommer pappa att ha tagit dina pengar."
Because today is Sunday and Systembolaget isn't open until tomorrow. Maybe this clears things up for you.
As a native (S.E) English speaker there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sentence. "My money is gone"/"Dad will have taken it" appears to reflect upon an earlier conversation where you (as owner of the money) have discussed with Dad taking the money somewhere (the bank maybe?) If you are a lazy teenager and sleep in, you may find the money gone when you awake - hence the conversation in my example
Your usage is totally correct, but to me it is a Britishism. :) I would say "Dad must have taken it" or "Dad probably took it" in your situation.
This doesn't work in Swedish, the comments on another sentence indicate. This tense only applies to the future in Swedish, but if you want to make a theory about the present, you'd better use väl: Pappa har väl tagit dina pengar. ("Dad has probably taken your money.")
My favourite fictional one on that topic is "You Stole My Heart, You Stole My Dog, But You Ain't Gonna Steal My Chevy". :)
Dad has some addiction or dependency perhaps. Reasonable sentence in my view.
I think the future perfect tense makes for really weird sentences when there is no context. It's talking about the future, but as if it already happened. "Dad will have taken your money before you have time to get to the bank and stop him."
why does "should" not work here?
dad should have taken your moeny as well?
kommer att ha tagit is future tense, indicating something that has not happened yet. should have taken is not future tense, so it doesn't work here.
This structure seems to be used not just to talk about some action that is expected to be complete at some point in the future, but to make conjectures like we would in English with "must," as in "Dad must have taken your money." Is this accurate?