The rich - poor gap

[davepoth]

heppers75 said:

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.

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.

Ok, here I go.

The big problem with removing inheritance tax is that it concentrates wealth. The rich remain rich because they've always avoided it, the well off become rich, but the people who never had any money to save become poorer.

The amount of money in circulation falls as people tie it up in investments. That causes deflation, as there is a scarcity of pounds in circulation. That causes people to stop spending because their money will be worth more later. Before long you will arrive at a situation where nobody wants to spend any money, and nobody can afford to buy anything produced in the UK.

The economy would be effectively moribund, the country becoming a playground for those with money while those without money are going to struggle to survive.

Inheritance tax was introduced to stop that from happening after wealth became increasingly concentrated in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[Siscar]

So what we are saying is that having a big gap between rich and poor that has no basis on effort or reward but is entirely random is fine.

One person can be rich, another can be poor, and all without any justifiable cause whatsoever. Sounds like the society we want?

[Justayellowbadge]

Siscar said:

One person can be rich, another can be poor, and all without any justifiable cause whatsoever. Sounds like the society we want?

I'll get behind measures to change that just after the introduction of measures to prevent people randomly being born: better looking, taller, faster, stronger, more intelligent, thinner or any other differentiators.

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

So what we are saying is that having a big gap between rich and poor that has no basis on effort or reward but is entirely random is fine.

One person can be rich, another can be poor, and all without any justifiable cause whatsoever. Sounds like the society we want?

One could say no more random than having the opportunity, familial contacts, where you went to school,ability to take on risk etc. etc.
Thing is we are just not all born equal regardless of whether we inherit or not.
Don't get me wrong it is always an advantage to inherit some wonga.
I was brought up with parents that started with nothing ,that worked very hard and put a bit away ,not a lot , but left me a small start in my life.
As important,if not more,was the strong work ethic that they showed me.
They also had a strong family ethic that passed on to me.
It is in my DNA to want to help my kids,not talking of passing on fortunes,just enough to help towards a mortgage,is that so terrible ?

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

It is in my DNA to want to help my kids,not talking of passing on fortunes,just enough to help towards a mortgage,is that so terrible ?

It's not bad at all. But it's the same as the multi millionaire who has never worked in their life, went to Eton, swanned around the world trying to have fun wherever they can, a few houses in choice places, living a life of luxury and laziness, making little or no contribution to society as they do it.

Of course that's at an extreme, but it comes down to the same thing, totally undeserved wealth bestowed at random. (as are looks, intelligence and so on...)

[DanL]

Siscar said:

It's not bad at all. But it's the same as the multi millionaire who has never worked in their life, went to Eton, swanned around the world trying to have fun wherever they can, a few houses in choice places, living a life of luxury and laziness, making little or no contribution to society as they do it.

Of course that's at an extreme, but it comes down to the same thing, totally undeserved wealth bestowed at random. (as are looks, intelligence and so on...)

But why does what someone else do matter to you? Life, ultimately, isn't fair after all...

[Siscar]

DanL said:

But why does what someone else do matter to you? Life, ultimately, isn't fair after all...

Well go back to the beginning of this thread, read through some of the comments about rich v poor, I'm wondering where those people are who think there is a problem, who think things need to change, when the focus is on inheritance.

There seem to be people who have a big problem with others being rich, probably a big problem with others gaining wealth with no effort, but no problem with them and their's inheriting.

Now I don't have a problem with life being unfair, with wealth being bestowed on people largely at random based on your good fortune as to the wealth your family has accumulated, but people need to be honest about it. If it bothers you then inheritance has to go, if that doesn't work for you then the gap between rich and poor, the gap that this thread is about remains and grows.

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

It's not bad at all. But it's the same as the multi millionaire who has never worked in their life, went to Eton, swanned around the world trying to have fun wherever they can, a few houses in choice places, living a life of luxury and laziness, making little or no contribution to society as they do it.

Of course that's at an extreme, but it comes down to the same thing, totally undeserved wealth bestowed at random. (as are looks, intelligence and so on...)

You have said previously that you do not wish to pass on anything to your kids.
To me that doesn't make sense ,if they are good kids why not at least give them a little start in life.
Leave the rest to wherever,but not wanting to give your kids anything,sounds a bit perverse.
There will always be people at either end of the social spectrum,whether it's the so called feckless layabout living off benefits or the Eton toff living off inheritance ,different sides of the same coin.
They should be pitied,I would not wish to live their aimless lives and I suspect nor would many of you.

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

You have said previously that you do not wish to pass on anything to your kids.
To me that doesn't make sense ,if they are good kids why not at least give them a little start in life.
Leave the rest to wherever,but not wanting to give your kids anything,sounds a bit perverse.
There will always be people at either end of the social spectrum,whether it's the so called feckless layabout living off benefits or the Eton toff living off inheritance ,different sides of the same coin.
They should be pitied,I would not wish to live their aimless lives and I suspect nor would many of you.

No, not said that.

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

Well go back to the beginning of this thread, read through some of the comments about rich v poor, I'm wondering where those people are who think there is a problem, who think things need to change, when the focus is on inheritance.

There seem to be people who have a big problem with others being rich, probably a big problem with others gaining wealth with no effort, but no problem with them and their's inheriting.

Now I don't have a problem with life being unfair, with wealth being bestowed on people largely at random based on your good fortune as to the wealth your family has accumulated, but people need to be honest about it. If it bothers you then inheritance has to go, if that doesn't work for you then the gap between rich and poor, the gap that this thread is about remains and grows.

I do not think the problem lies with people working hard ,creating wealth whilst at the same time creating jobs and opportunities to others and those wealth creators benefitting from their talents.
There is a conversation possibly about inherited wealth but let's leave that for the moment.
The problem I think is where the wealthy and our political leaders are given, or give themselves preferential treatment either by an absence of laws governing their behaviour or when their wealth or position gives them powers to evade laws that the great majority have to live by,let's call it "a Get Out of Jail" free card.
That's what really gets up people's noses .

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

You have said previously that you do not wish to pass on anything to your kids.
To me that doesn't make sense ,if they are good kids why not at least give them a little start in life.
Leave the rest to wherever,but not wanting to give your kids anything,sounds a bit perverse.
There will always be people at either end of the social spectrum,whether it's the so called feckless layabout living off benefits or the Eton toff living off inheritance ,different sides of the same coin.
They should be pitied,I would not wish to live their aimless lives and I suspect nor would many of you.

No, not said that.

Page 11... 1st post
You 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."

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

I do not think the problem lies with people working hard ,creating wealth whilst at the same time creating jobs and opportunities to others and those wealth creators benefitting from their talents.
There is a conversation possibly about inherited wealth but let's leave that for the moment.
The problem I think is where the wealthy and our political leaders are given, or give themselves preferential treatment either by an absence of laws governing their behaviour or when their wealth or position gives them powers to evade laws that the great majority have to live by,let's call it "a Get Out of Jail" free card.
That's what really gets up people's noses .

Well it's an interesting perspective but where is the reality? The rules are the same for all of us, of course people try to wriggle out of the imposition of them but, rich or poor, they get done for it, unless it's legal.

So who has been allowed to "evade laws that the great majority have to live by?"

[anonymous-user]

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

I do not think the problem lies with people working hard ,creating wealth whilst at the same time creating jobs and opportunities to others and those wealth creators benefitting from their talents.
There is a conversation possibly about inherited wealth but let's leave that for the moment.
The problem I think is where the wealthy and our political leaders are given, or give themselves preferential treatment either by an absence of laws governing their behaviour or when their wealth or position gives them powers to evade laws that the great majority have to live by,let's call it "a Get Out of Jail" free card.
That's what really gets up people's noses .

Well it's an interesting perspective but where is the reality? The rules are the same for all of us, of course people try to wriggle out of the imposition of them but, rich or poor, they get done for it, unless it's legal.

So who has been allowed to "evade laws that the great majority have to live by?"

How about our MPs? You try defrauding your employer and see what happens when you're found out. I doubt that you'll be allowed to simply pay it back and carry on, changing the rules as you go to your own benefit.

[markcoznottz]

In the old days accruel of wealth resulted in investment, money invested would grow and be redistributed. The parking of money in bubbles is surely the start of the end if we're not careful we will end up like russia, if london isn't already.

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

I do not think the problem lies with people working hard ,creating wealth whilst at the same time creating jobs and opportunities to others and those wealth creators benefitting from their talents.
There is a conversation possibly about inherited wealth but let's leave that for the moment.
The problem I think is where the wealthy and our political leaders are given, or give themselves preferential treatment either by an absence of laws governing their behaviour or when their wealth or position gives them powers to evade laws that the great majority have to live by,let's call it "a Get Out of Jail" free card.
That's what really gets up people's noses .

Well it's an interesting perspective but where is the reality? The rules are the same for all of us, of course people try to wriggle out of the imposition of them but, rich or poor, they get done for it, unless it's legal.

So who has been allowed to "evade laws that the great majority have to live by?"

Its not so much evading laws its either the absense of legislation or when there is legislation it is so badly framed it is easy to bypass.
Some MP's and some Banks are surely guilty of taking advantage of the above.

[Derek Smith]

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?

As a poster said, tax on tax is common.

As shown on this thread:

There are objections to taxing the rich because they are rich.

The middle classes, or the 'Herd' according to one poster, are squeezed and the pips have been long ejected.

The poor, well they are poor so what's the point in taxing them? They've got no spare money so they'd only claim more benefits.

Who does that leave?

If a bloke is dead then he don't need the money, of that I'm pretty sure.

It is not the money of the beneficiaries, it belonged to the dead bloke.

Looked at logically, why is this not reasonable?

It is not a tax. There's no one to tax.

There was a case a few years ago where a woman horse owner died and wanted two perfectly fit horses to be killed and buried near to her. This was challenged in court, I can't remember by whom, and the court discovered that the woman was dead so would not benefit in any way from the premature death of the horses. So sod here desires.

A dead bloke does not benefit from his money going elsewhere.

I have never seen the value of following directions, other than minor ones, from someone in a grave. If he/she didn't do it when they were alive then they missed their chance. I know this is not universally supported but I remain bemused as to why people follow such demands. Other than legally of course.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Derek Smith said:

The poor, well they are poor so what's the point in taxing them? They've got no spare money so they'd only claim more benefits.

It's worth mentioning that "the poor", let's say those who have some income but don't pay any income tax, still pay quite a bit of tax,

• VAT
• Council tax
• Fuel duty
• Booze duty
• Fags duty
• Gambling duty
• Car tax disc
• Insurance premium tax

The system is totally geared-up to ensure that tax dodgers still get taxed at about 20% overall, and it sweeps many of "the poor" in with it.

[don4l]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Derek Smith said:

The poor, well they are poor so what's the point in taxing them? They've got no spare money so they'd only claim more benefits.

It's worth mentioning that "the poor", let's say those who have some income but don't pay any income tax, still pay quite a bit of tax,

• VAT
• Council tax
• Fuel duty
• Booze duty
• Fags duty
• Gambling duty
• Car tax disc
• Insurance premium tax

The system is totally geared-up to ensure that tax dodgers still get taxed at about 20% overall, and it sweeps many of "the poor" in with it.

They pay all of this out of their "benefits".

Ozzie, are you a recepient of state benefits?

[nightflight]

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

It is in my DNA to want to help my kids,not talking of passing on fortunes,just enough to help towards a mortgage,is that so terrible ?

It's not bad at all. But it's the same as the multi millionaire who has never worked in their life, went to Eton, swanned around the world trying to have fun wherever they can, a few houses in choice places, living a life of luxury and laziness, making little or no contribution to society as they do it.

Of course that's at an extreme, but it comes down to the same thing, totally undeserved wealth bestowed at random. (as are looks, intelligence and so on...)

In the grand scheme of things, how many people does this actually happen to. Generally speaking, people who send their kids to Eton (or any public school), tend to be successful and intelligent . From my experience they tend to be the sort of people with a strong work ethic, and expect their kids to be the same. I would even go as far as to say that those who have had such an education, tend to be under more pressure to achieve then the rest of society. I went to a private boarding school, and I don't know of anyone I went to school with who is lazy and living off their parents wealth. They are all working hard, and providing for their own offspring.
On the subject of fairness, there's a bloke in the next village to me who won 11 million on the lottery. Is that fair? He's got a bigger house than me and more cars. Does it bother me? Not in the slightest. Life is a lottery. Get over it.

[PhillipM]

don4l said:

They pay all of this out of their "benefits".

Ozzie, are you a recepient of state benefits?

I'm afraid the poorest people in this country aren't those on benefits, contrary to what many people in this thread seem to think. But rather those working their arses off to keep some dignity whilst still taking home less effective spending power than they would if they were on benefits, sat on their arses at home, and getting free clothes, travel, their house repairs paid for, new utilities when they've sold them for booze, etc, etc.
As a child I watched my father work himself into several years of serious illness going through that whilst bringing us up, and I watched as the lazy dole-scrounging bds around us smoked, drunk, partied and generally went through the wide-screen TV and games console/mobile phones like they were toys, whilst we had to watch how much we were eating in case we couldn't afford to go shopping that week.

Edited by PhillipM on Monday 21st April 11:17