The rich - poor gap
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Siscar said:
I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.
But if the person who earned it is dead then it's obviously going to have to go to someone who didn't.But I'm not suggesting that, obviously it would be silly and vastly unpopular.
It's just the way in which people seem to have this the wrong way round, inherited wealth is the undeserved end of the spectrum, it's pure lottery, the most unfair form of wealth. Yet people talk about taxing income and taxing wealth and trying to make society more equal by taking from those who have earned it, yet mention inheritance and everyone runs from it.
But if you want equality, if you want a society where everything is on merit, where you get what you earn and you don't have undeserved wealth you stop inheritance. Yet almost no matter how far to the red end of the political spectrum people are, the concept that they may not inherit from their parents or give to their kids keeps them quiet on this.
If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
Siscar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Siscar said:
I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.
But if the person who earned it is dead then it's obviously going to have to go to someone who didn't.turbobloke said:
Siscar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Siscar said:
I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.
But if the person who earned it is dead then it's obviously going to have to go to someone who didn't.Siscar said:
It's just the way in which people seem to have this the wrong way round, inherited wealth is the undeserved end of the spectrum, it's pure lottery, the most unfair form of wealth. Yet people talk about taxing income and taxing wealth and trying to make society more equal by taking from those who have earned it, yet mention inheritance and everyone runs from it.
If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
No, if YOU believe this is the way to a fair society YOU give YOUR money to the government. YOU can do that as it is now, you don't need to compell me to do the same. I still don't hear of many choosing to do this so the majority do not share that view. If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
It is the right of any person to dispose of their earned income/wealth as they see fit.
Redistribution of wealth has never achieved a "fair society", merely a larger poor population & huge rich-poor gap.
Siscar said:
turbobloke said:
Siscar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Siscar said:
I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.
But if the person who earned it is dead then it's obviously going to have to go to someone who didn't.Siscar said:
Make it mandatory to give it all to charity or spend it all on a tomb if you prefer
No thanks 
AA999 said:
It seems the issue of the 'rich vs poor gap widening' as reported in the media over the years is getting 'worse'.
The rich seeing an ever increasing income whilst the poor seeing an increasing struggle as they fight against inflation and much lower salary increases (if these occur at all at their job levels).
So what realistic action could be taken to resolve the matter and would it be 'good' for Britain?
A few questions to liven up the discussion :
... Does the gap have to exist in order people work harder and make something of themselves?
... Do the rich have too much control over the UK's wealth, ensuring that even through times of recession they still make every increasing amounts of income?
... If unchecked/uncontrolled what is to stop the rich soaking up 'too much' of the UK wealth leaving the remainder population in 'poverty'?
The rich-poor gap is as old as time itself.The rich seeing an ever increasing income whilst the poor seeing an increasing struggle as they fight against inflation and much lower salary increases (if these occur at all at their job levels).
So what realistic action could be taken to resolve the matter and would it be 'good' for Britain?
A few questions to liven up the discussion :
... Does the gap have to exist in order people work harder and make something of themselves?
... Do the rich have too much control over the UK's wealth, ensuring that even through times of recession they still make every increasing amounts of income?
... If unchecked/uncontrolled what is to stop the rich soaking up 'too much' of the UK wealth leaving the remainder population in 'poverty'?
Edited by AA999 on Wednesday 16th April 15:51
It will NEVER go away. Simple math. Someone with 10k who makes a big 100% return will still be relatively poorer than someone with 1000k who makes a tiny 5% gain.
The rich-poor-gap goes in *cycles*. It widens during peacetime, and narrows in wartime. In peacetime, employers have more choice and can exploit employees. In wartime, employers have less choice (because the masses are fighting) and the cost of doing business rises. If you really want to narrow the rich-poor gap, keep yer fingers crossed for some action in Eastern Europe or Asia
Siscar said:
turbobloke said:
Siscar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Siscar said:
I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.
But if the person who earned it is dead then it's obviously going to have to go to someone who didn't.Siscar said:
Well it doesn't, it could all go in a 100% IHT with no threshold.
But I'm not suggesting that, obviously it would be silly and vastly unpopular.
It's just the way in which people seem to have this the wrong way round, inherited wealth is the undeserved end of the spectrum, it's pure lottery, the most unfair form of wealth. Yet people talk about taxing income and taxing wealth and trying to make society more equal by taking from those who have earned it, yet mention inheritance and everyone runs from it.
But if you want equality, if you want a society where everything is on merit, where you get what you earn and you don't have undeserved wealth you stop inheritance. Yet almost no matter how far to the red end of the political spectrum people are, the concept that they may not inherit from their parents or give to their kids keeps them quiet on this.
If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
This ^But I'm not suggesting that, obviously it would be silly and vastly unpopular.
It's just the way in which people seem to have this the wrong way round, inherited wealth is the undeserved end of the spectrum, it's pure lottery, the most unfair form of wealth. Yet people talk about taxing income and taxing wealth and trying to make society more equal by taking from those who have earned it, yet mention inheritance and everyone runs from it.
But if you want equality, if you want a society where everything is on merit, where you get what you earn and you don't have undeserved wealth you stop inheritance. Yet almost no matter how far to the red end of the political spectrum people are, the concept that they may not inherit from their parents or give to their kids keeps them quiet on this.
If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
santona1937 said:
Siscar said:
Well it doesn't, it could all go in a 100% IHT with no threshold.
But I'm not suggesting that, obviously it would be silly and vastly unpopular.
It's just the way in which people seem to have this the wrong way round, inherited wealth is the undeserved end of the spectrum, it's pure lottery, the most unfair form of wealth. Yet people talk about taxing income and taxing wealth and trying to make society more equal by taking from those who have earned it, yet mention inheritance and everyone runs from it.
But if you want equality, if you want a society where everything is on merit, where you get what you earn and you don't have undeserved wealth you stop inheritance. Yet almost no matter how far to the red end of the political spectrum people are, the concept that they may not inherit from their parents or give to their kids keeps them quiet on this.
If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
This ^But I'm not suggesting that, obviously it would be silly and vastly unpopular.
It's just the way in which people seem to have this the wrong way round, inherited wealth is the undeserved end of the spectrum, it's pure lottery, the most unfair form of wealth. Yet people talk about taxing income and taxing wealth and trying to make society more equal by taking from those who have earned it, yet mention inheritance and everyone runs from it.
But if you want equality, if you want a society where everything is on merit, where you get what you earn and you don't have undeserved wealth you stop inheritance. Yet almost no matter how far to the red end of the political spectrum people are, the concept that they may not inherit from their parents or give to their kids keeps them quiet on this.
If you want to bridge the gap between rich and poor, if you want a 'fair society' then you get rid of inheritance, if you don't want that then you will always have a big gap between rich and poor and it's time for people to stop whining about it.
fblm said:
turbobloke said:
Winning a euromillions multiple rollover can indeed help to widen the gap between the winner and most other people, but it's not 'fair' as not everyone wins it.
hidetheelephants said:
Siscar said:
turbobloke said:
Siscar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Siscar said:
I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.
But if the person who earned it is dead then it's obviously going to have to go to someone who didn't.
t parents?If you do not work for your family and for their future then what do you do?
Justayellowbadge said:
I guess it depends upon if you think of it as your parents' money or if they consider it family money.
IHT is evil.
Agreed JAYB. IHT is evil.
I work to make sure my son will not have to work as hard as I had to, I want to make sure he has property, an income and comfort. I want him to have choices I could never have had and i want him to be happy.
At this rate I will leave him somewhere in the region of a decent seven figure "empire" if that was the word you chose to give it. Now I have paid tax on that, I have earned it and I have chosen to bequeath it to him.
Now can someone tell me why that is a bad thing? Or why the state should for no other reason than greed have any slice of that or even give me just a single cogent argument as to why the state gets a single penny will do.
heppers75 said:
I work to make sure my son will not have to work as hard as I had to, I want to make sure he has property, an income and comfort. I want him to have choices I could never have had and i want him to be happy.
I don't have kids, but if I did I'd probably follow your example. But I must admit, I've always valued things that I've worked hard for myself, rather than being given them.heppers75 said:
Derek Smith said:
I can't see anything wrong with taxing the dead. Much better than taxing the living.
Now Derek I respect your posts and I think you are a reasonable bloke. Do you truly and honestly countenance tax on tax?
The recipient of IHT hasn't paid tax on that capital gain or income, so it's not a tax on a tax at all.
steviegunn said:
Many taxes are a tax on tax, Council Tax, VED, VAT, Fuel Duty, Tobacco Duty, Alcohol Duty, PAD, etc.
The recipient of IHT hasn't paid tax on that capital gain or income, so it's not a tax on a tax at all.
With the best will in the world and with all the respect I can muster. The recipient of IHT hasn't paid tax on that capital gain or income, so it's not a tax on a tax at all.
Cock the f
k off.Anyone that pays IHT has paid all manner of taxes to evoque IHT.
If my father paid £5000 for a property in 1973 that today happens to be worth £400k... Then I inherit that from him, how is the fact the happenstance of location entitle the government to some money"?
I want you to give me a good argument that makes that valid - just one.
heppers75 said:
With the best will in the world and with all the respect I can muster.
Cock the fk off.
Anyone that pays IHT has paid all manner of taxes to evoque IHT.
If my father paid £5000 for a property in 1973 that today happens to be worth £400k... Then I inherit that from him, how is the fact the happenstance of location entitle the government to some money"?
I want you to give me a good argument that makes that valid - just one.
Isn't that question equally valid about any tax?Cock the f
k off.Anyone that pays IHT has paid all manner of taxes to evoque IHT.
If my father paid £5000 for a property in 1973 that today happens to be worth £400k... Then I inherit that from him, how is the fact the happenstance of location entitle the government to some money"?
I want you to give me a good argument that makes that valid - just one.
Randy Winkman said:
heppers75 said:
With the best will in the world and with all the respect I can muster.
Cock the fk off.
Anyone that pays IHT has paid all manner of taxes to evoque IHT.
If my father paid £5000 for a property in 1973 that today happens to be worth £400k... Then I inherit that from him, how is the fact the happenstance of location entitle the government to some money"?
I want you to give me a good argument that makes that valid - just one.
Isn't that question equally valid about any tax?Cock the f
k off.Anyone that pays IHT has paid all manner of taxes to evoque IHT.
If my father paid £5000 for a property in 1973 that today happens to be worth £400k... Then I inherit that from him, how is the fact the happenstance of location entitle the government to some money"?
I want you to give me a good argument that makes that valid - just one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff