The Next Conservative Budget
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
Getragdogleg said:
...
Pretty sure if the advocates of the 100% tax were in a position to have to pay it they would be singing a different song.....
Like many socialist taxes the proponents would would be avoiding it like the plague...Pretty sure if the advocates of the 100% tax were in a position to have to pay it they would be singing a different song.....
edh said:
CaptainSlow said:
supersingle said:
It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.
It's been taxed once already.Something wrong about forcing people to sell property to pay IHT bills.
I see both sides of the IHT arguments and see where people say it favours the rich etc as there offspring. But then again do we not all want our children to do as well as they can an have best opportunities. Myself for example stand to inherit very little from my family when they pass away. My children however will do very well from me and my wife (assuming we do not sell the lot an go on a huge bender when we are in our 60's). So tell me why would I not want to look after my children and why would I blame others for doing the same. Fact is my children are less likely to require housing benefit etc so will be less of a drain on the state as in the long term they will both inherit homes (If we have not already passed them on to them).
Not everyone can do that an some people Bill Gates etc can leave way more. Its just the way of the world but helping out future generations means the government does not have to as much. So I see the pro IHT argument as one of envy really I mean you wont benefit directly but you will prevent others from doing so.
Not everyone can do that an some people Bill Gates etc can leave way more. Its just the way of the world but helping out future generations means the government does not have to as much. So I see the pro IHT argument as one of envy really I mean you wont benefit directly but you will prevent others from doing so.
CaptainSlow said:
edh said:
CaptainSlow said:
supersingle said:
It'll be entirely unearnt, yet it'll be taxed at a much lower rate than my earnings.
It's been taxed once already.Something wrong about forcing people to sell property to pay IHT bills.
I'd rather collect the tax over the lifetime rather than on death - more effective. IHT could be abolished then.
As for selling a property...how many people want to move into their parent's house when they die anyway?
oyster said:
For a minute please put aside what I might infer or assert, and answer my question.
As I've said before, I'm not in favour of bringing people down a peg. I'm just intrigued how you give other people a leg up, or even ensure they start with a level playing field.
Well I infer and you assert, but that's by the by!As I've said before, I'm not in favour of bringing people down a peg. I'm just intrigued how you give other people a leg up, or even ensure they start with a level playing field.
As for your question; I have no idea. What I do know is that the answer to bringing person X 'up' to the level of Y is not, axiomatically, bringing Y down to the level of X.
To do so would be to conflate equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, and your last sentence suggests its equality of opportunity you're rightly concerned with.
On the one hand I couldn't care less if there was 100% IHT, I'd like my parents to enjoy everything they have earned and give me nothing. On the other hand I will move mountains to keep HMRC's tenticles off every single penny of my own kids inheritance. Of course most of us would like to live in a true meritocracy in which no one would object to IHT but in the real world it can all be gifted away before death in any event so IHT is meaningless as some meritocratic social leveller. The real problem is that no one knows how long they are going to live so you can prudently provide for a 40 year retirement only to drop dead early and lose it to the tax man. Hardly a policy for a healthy society where everyone provides for themselves adequately in old age.
oyster said:
iphonedyou said:
oyster said:
So how do you propose bringing everyone up to your level if you received a big inheritance and someone else received nothing? They have to work hard and you don't.
Well isn't that lovely.
Notwithstanding, of course, the ridiculous assertion that those receiving an inheritance don't have to work hard, and the obvious inference one is led to draw that they therefore don't.
Edited by iphonedyou on Tuesday 7th July 12:19
As I've said before, I'm not in favour of bringing people down a peg. I'm just intrigued how you give other people a leg up, or even ensure they start with a level playing field.
ked if you own a carPegscratch said:
Mermaid said:
No MOT for 4 years for new cars - good plan.
Why?The number of retards I see driving around in newer cars with lights out and obvious defects is stupendous. Does a new car not wear out, or break? Is this some kind of new trick I've missed?
The annual MOT is a pain, but a necessary one. Germany has 2 year MOT's for used cars, but far more comprehensive that results in marginal cars being scrapped.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff