Will overuled by judge
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
BV and I have had one or two differences of opinion on PH, but I respect his as it normally has been considered. We come from different 'sides' of the legal system and that can be apparent.
We have a certain degree of conflict about what constitutes a marriage. I doubt we will meet in the middle, but his view is supported by evidence, and so is mine. So it is down to interpretation and emphasis.
In this case, though, I'm with him.
What I find difficult to understand is the logic of, it would appear, your suggestion of ignoring everything that BV has posted just because he has a view on inheritance which, one assumes, conflicts with yours.
My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that. Further, I think that blind obedience to the wishes of the dead is a cop-out. They, or rather their wishes, are just as much subject to the law as when they were alive. I am confused as to why it should be different just because they've shuffled off the mortal coil.
The dead are beyond disappointment, pain and resentment. Bugger 'em I say - not supporting necrophilia by the way. It is the living who need control of their environment and lifestyle.
I'm not ruling out BV's opinion based on his views. This is a forum to discuss opinion. When BV delares he's right because thats what it states in law he is entirely correct but it stifles opinion. It is a degree of frustration from people like BV and vonhousen, who when pressed for an explanation of their opinion quote from their respective bibles as if it were an explanation. In other words at a certain point following their thinking and trying to change to them, or pull them away from their current line of thinking you hit a brick wall.We have a certain degree of conflict about what constitutes a marriage. I doubt we will meet in the middle, but his view is supported by evidence, and so is mine. So it is down to interpretation and emphasis.
In this case, though, I'm with him.
What I find difficult to understand is the logic of, it would appear, your suggestion of ignoring everything that BV has posted just because he has a view on inheritance which, one assumes, conflicts with yours.
My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that. Further, I think that blind obedience to the wishes of the dead is a cop-out. They, or rather their wishes, are just as much subject to the law as when they were alive. I am confused as to why it should be different just because they've shuffled off the mortal coil.
The dead are beyond disappointment, pain and resentment. Bugger 'em I say - not supporting necrophilia by the way. It is the living who need control of their environment and lifestyle.
But assuming BV has left the thread for the time being, lets go furtheron the discussion. Flemke posed the point regarding building a cemetary over your grave, and to be honest I tend to agree with you on the point of I don't care what happens to my body after death, so in that way I don't really care about my rights, save for two things.
1) I want my hard earned through life to go to my wife and children because they spent their lives through not choice of their own having to put up with me. I could have done a lot better for them as a father if I didn't have a job which means I spend most of my days away from them earning money. In other words if I threw in my job and lived on the dole I think their appreciation of me (aside from expensive holidays) would improve.
2) I work in a profession where I find it intensely frustrating that a person goes through their entire life telling me they want to donate their organs in death, for an upset relative to say no in the midst of their grief less than 24 hours after the patient dies. In this way the dead person has been stripped of their rights less than twenty four hours after they die regardless of anything else already in our society.
I know this is a slight departure from the original thread but they are the two main reason why I think the dead have rights beyond those you would have for them.
julian64 said:
1) I want my hard earned through life to go to my wife and children because they spent their lives through not choice of their own having to put up with me. I could have done a lot better for them as a father if I didn't have a job which means I spend most of my days away from them earning money. In other words if I threw in my job and lived on the dole I think their appreciation of me (aside from expensive holidays) would improve.
2) I work in a profession where I find it intensely frustrating that a person goes through their entire life telling me they want to donate their organs in death, for an upset relative to say no in the midst of their grief less than 24 hours after the patient dies. In this way the dead person has been stripped of their rights less than twenty four hours after they die regardless of anything else already in our society.
I know this is a slight departure from the original thread but they are the two main reason why I think the dead have rights beyond those you would have for them.
1/ of course you do. No one wants to pay taxes. However, if we took money from those who don't need it, the dead, then there would be more hard-earned for you during your lifetime. 2) I work in a profession where I find it intensely frustrating that a person goes through their entire life telling me they want to donate their organs in death, for an upset relative to say no in the midst of their grief less than 24 hours after the patient dies. In this way the dead person has been stripped of their rights less than twenty four hours after they die regardless of anything else already in our society.
I know this is a slight departure from the original thread but they are the two main reason why I think the dead have rights beyond those you would have for them.
I tend not to beat myself up when a make a mistake, something which is of great irritation to my wife. I just try not to make the same mistake twice. Where the fallout from something I did wrong has major implication for others then I can get upset.
However, the one thing I look back on with regret is how hard I worked when my eldest two were young. If I got three days off a month I was doing well and four house overtime every other day was my target which I often exceeded. What made it worse was when I experienced what I had missed with my elder two.
I've made enough mistakes to fill a couple of books - second edition out soon - but there's only one I still beat myself up about at that time just before I get off to sleep.
My four kids are always telling me and my wife to spend the inheritance. It is, as they say, a bit late for them to be modified greatly by 1/4 of the parental assets.
There was research completed with those on their last legs in hospital. They were asked what they did well, what they did badly, what were the good decisions and the bad. Fascinating stuff. It is worth digging out. Not one person suggested they wished they had spent more time at work.
julian64 said:
I'm not ruling out BV's opinion based on his views. This is a forum to discuss opinion. When BV delares he's right because thats what it states in law he is entirely correct but it stifles opinion. It is a degree of frustration from people like BV and vonhousen, who when pressed for an explanation of their opinion quote from their respective bibles as if it were an explanation.
A round about way of saying that you disagree with what I say, but rather than counter what I say with reasoned argument you make feeble and ineffective personal attacks and ineptly attempt to caricature my comments. You appear to have convinced yourself that your hilariously misconceived theory about what I think and how I think it is correct and also super clever, but sadly it is neither. There are also signs that you have subscribed to the fatuous internet myth that all opinions are equal, and that there is no such thing as being wrong, all things being relative. I am often wrong, but am sometimes right, accidentally or on purpose. The notion that sometimes being right about something "stifles opinion" is a notion that could exist only in the bizarre world of online discussion. It is a bit like saying that, if a doctor rightly points out that someone's leg is broken, that stifles opinion about why the patient is limping.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 31st July 11:38
Derek Smith said:
1/ of course you do. No one wants to pay taxes. However, if we took money from those who don't need it, the dead, then there would be more hard-earned for you during your lifetime.
I tend not to beat myself up when a make a mistake, something which is of great irritation to my wife. I just try not to make the same mistake twice. Where the fallout from something I did wrong has major implication for others then I can get upset.
However, the one thing I look back on with regret is how hard I worked when my eldest two were young. If I got three days off a month I was doing well and four house overtime every other day was my target which I often exceeded. What made it worse was when I experienced what I had missed with my elder two.
I've made enough mistakes to fill a couple of books - second edition out soon - but there's only one I still beat myself up about at that time just before I get off to sleep.
My four kids are always telling me and my wife to spend the inheritance. It is, as they say, a bit late for them to be modified greatly by 1/4 of the parental assets.
There was research completed with those on their last legs in hospital. They were asked what they did well, what they did badly, what were the good decisions and the bad. Fascinating stuff. It is worth digging out. Not one person suggested they wished they had spent more time at work.
All true, but the one thing I will be able to say on my deathbed is that my children were well provided for. I will have regrets but they are based on my perspective of already having provided, but not having managed to spend enough time. The dead in other words do need money to show those that are left behind that they cared, even if it is a less direct route.I tend not to beat myself up when a make a mistake, something which is of great irritation to my wife. I just try not to make the same mistake twice. Where the fallout from something I did wrong has major implication for others then I can get upset.
However, the one thing I look back on with regret is how hard I worked when my eldest two were young. If I got three days off a month I was doing well and four house overtime every other day was my target which I often exceeded. What made it worse was when I experienced what I had missed with my elder two.
I've made enough mistakes to fill a couple of books - second edition out soon - but there's only one I still beat myself up about at that time just before I get off to sleep.
My four kids are always telling me and my wife to spend the inheritance. It is, as they say, a bit late for them to be modified greatly by 1/4 of the parental assets.
There was research completed with those on their last legs in hospital. They were asked what they did well, what they did badly, what were the good decisions and the bad. Fascinating stuff. It is worth digging out. Not one person suggested they wished they had spent more time at work.
1) Personally, not being able to provide for your children means you shouldn't have had them in the first place.
2) Being a working father who never sees their children is better because its putting them first.
3) Being a working father with enough time to spend most of it with them is, of course best, but how many of us have jobs that good?
The problem with the idea that a dead person has no rights is that you seem to have made option one and option two the same, which I think has some consequences for society as it currently stands, but I can see your point that its probably fairer on children in a wider rather than personal sense.
Still its interesting to see your take on it. I think what I learned from this thread is that the 'will' is far more open to postmortom debate than I am happy with, and that its probably better to get rid of your assets to those you want to benefit prior to death than leave a will at the mercy of a judge making a dubious decision.
Derek Smith said:
My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that. Further, I think that blind obedience to the wishes of the dead is a cop-out. They, or rather their wishes, are just as much subject to the law as when they were alive. I am confused as to why it should be different just because they've shuffled off the mortal coil.
Surely tax has already been paid on those funds whilst earning that money. Also you would be taking it from the intended living recipient.julian64 said:
All true, but the one thing I will be able to say on my deathbed is that my children were well provided for. I will have regrets but they are based on my perspective of already having provided, but not having managed to spend enough time. The dead in other words do need money to show those that are left behind that they cared, even if it is a less direct route.
1) Personally, not being able to provide for your children means you shouldn't have had them in the first place.
2) Being a working father who never sees their children is better because its putting them first.
3) Being a working father with enough time to spend most of it with them is, of course best, but how many of us have jobs that good?
The problem with the idea that a dead person has no rights is that you seem to have made option one and option two the same, which I think has some consequences for society as it currently stands, but I can see your point that its probably fairer on children in a wider rather than personal sense.
Still its interesting to see your take on it. I think what I learned from this thread is that the 'will' is far more open to postmortom debate than I am happy with, and that its probably better to get rid of your assets to those you want to benefit prior to death than leave a will at the mercy of a judge making a dubious decision.
There are a number of points in your post. 1/ is a moral stand and morals are individual. You have expressed your belief. Others, it would appear, think otherwise. 1) Personally, not being able to provide for your children means you shouldn't have had them in the first place.
2) Being a working father who never sees their children is better because its putting them first.
3) Being a working father with enough time to spend most of it with them is, of course best, but how many of us have jobs that good?
The problem with the idea that a dead person has no rights is that you seem to have made option one and option two the same, which I think has some consequences for society as it currently stands, but I can see your point that its probably fairer on children in a wider rather than personal sense.
Still its interesting to see your take on it. I think what I learned from this thread is that the 'will' is far more open to postmortom debate than I am happy with, and that its probably better to get rid of your assets to those you want to benefit prior to death than leave a will at the mercy of a judge making a dubious decision.
On this point, I once had to sell my car, my TV and go without holidays, nights out, etc. We walked everywhere we could. The memories of the walks into town to buy groceries are among my most cherished. That summer Our lives were idyllic, despite me working.
2/ again is a statement of belief. One wonders what the children would think if you asked them. But that's a long argument, whereas 3/. I think, is not.
3/ Being a baby boomer I had it much easier than those in their 20s today. Our first child came earlier than we anticipated, due to a confusion about the strength of latex when baby oil comes into contact with it. Our careful plans were hit by that, as they were by two companies I worked for collapsing in succession. Support for working mothers was all but non-existent in those days and our was more than halved, my wife having a well-paid and responsible job.
Further, both of us were of the opinion that a parent, preferably mother, should give up work to look after the kids until they went to school. This was when we gave up the car, social life, TV, and more.
Now ask yourself if giving up foreign holidays, ipad, mobile phone, Sky, car, other gubbins would be better or worse for kids if it meant they interfaced with parents more.
I'm not judging. We did it our way and I'm pleased with the results. But that does not mean others need do the same. However, you stated 'how many of us have jobs that good' and my belief is that a life without luxuries might suggest that many of us have.
As I stated earlier, the 18mnths we went without holdiay, car, social life was quite remarkably lovely. I would be surprised if most parents could not have done the same as us.
No central heating either, by the way.
Our decision had a considerable effect on our lives. More so than we thought would be the case initially. My wife was unable to go back to her old PR/secretary role so the higher earner in the family was reduced to what would now be basic wage work. My parents helped out with food parcels, lifts, moral support and more. I occasionally went to bed not being full. But I would not have changed a thing.
Given the cost of TV subscriptions, iPhones, cars, etc, are you certain that a life without a father is impossible nowadays, even for those in a middling job?
As to your last point: I recently downsized from a large 4-bed to a 3-bed (just), from Rottingdean to Burgess Hill. There was a bit of money free and we split it between the kids. Our reasoning was that when they were growing up we were not able to give them much by way of material things, and now we have a bit of money, we can even things up.
We've asked that the later dividing of the spoils, now well below the threshold, should be for the grandkids, but that that is up to the parents to decide.
There are choices you make in your life. These choices have repercussions throughout your life. We were poor at times, and although it seems a bit hackneyed to say it, but those times were really happy. The excitement with going from backpacking tents to a frame tent, the enabler being the car, was something quite exciting.
Cotty said:
Derek Smith said:
My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that. Further, I think that blind obedience to the wishes of the dead is a cop-out. They, or rather their wishes, are just as much subject to the law as when they were alive. I am confused as to why it should be different just because they've shuffled off the mortal coil.
Surely tax has already been paid on those funds whilst earning that money. Also you would be taking it from the intended living recipient.Take estate investments for example...
'Earnings' from employement - taxed.
From 'earned income' investments purchased.
Income from investments purchased from taxed income then taxed again.
Upon death - investments within estate taxed further under IHT.
So, IHT taxed on investments where investment income has been taxed, which have been purchased from taxed earnings.
Triple taxation!
State has filled it's boots.
Of course, overlooking tax-free alowances here..
'Earnings' from employement - taxed.
From 'earned income' investments purchased.
Income from investments purchased from taxed income then taxed again.
Upon death - investments within estate taxed further under IHT.
So, IHT taxed on investments where investment income has been taxed, which have been purchased from taxed earnings.
Triple taxation!
State has filled it's boots.
Of course, overlooking tax-free alowances here..
Cotty said:
Exactly so I don't agree that it should be taxed again heavily after someone dies.
It's not money that is taxed, it's people.If someone acquires money then they are (depending on the amount, and their circumstances) taxed on it. If people want their bequests not to be taxed, then they need to hand it over before they die, not afterwards. 5 years IIRC
RobinOakapple said:
It's not money that is taxed, it's people.
If someone acquires money then they are (depending on the amount, and their circumstances) taxed on it. If people want their bequests not to be taxed, then they need to hand it over before they die, not afterwards. 5 years IIRC
Tax rate tapers down to 0 at 7 years... If someone acquires money then they are (depending on the amount, and their circumstances) taxed on it. If people want their bequests not to be taxed, then they need to hand it over before they die, not afterwards. 5 years IIRC
Is it not 7 years?
Sliding IHT tax scale thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
Of course, this is then 'tax avoidance' - another debate entirely.
Sliding IHT tax scale thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
Of course, this is then 'tax avoidance' - another debate entirely.
Sort of..
There may be technical difficulties in obtaining probate, given that this may require prior settlement of IHT.
Where settlement of IHT may require estate assets to be liquidised by inheritor - which requires grant of probate - there may be one or two minor difficulties...
But this is all well off topic!
There may be technical difficulties in obtaining probate, given that this may require prior settlement of IHT.
Where settlement of IHT may require estate assets to be liquidised by inheritor - which requires grant of probate - there may be one or two minor difficulties...
But this is all well off topic!
Cotty said:
RobinOakapple said:
They aren't. It's the people who they leave the money to who are taxed, sorry, thought I had made that clear.
ok so I don't agree that people who they leave the money to should be taxed.But it can be a good thing, and helped to reduce the vast estates that many on the landed gentry owned simply because one of their ancestors was friendly (or worse) with the king.
No IHT then!
This should then be a philosophical discussion about the whys and wherefores of taxation upon 'inheritance' - the justification of raising further tax on already taxed income - and whether it is reasonable for a parent to provide for their offspring without yet more taxation.
However, it is not.
The 'philosophy' resides elsewhere.
This should then be a philosophical discussion about the whys and wherefores of taxation upon 'inheritance' - the justification of raising further tax on already taxed income - and whether it is reasonable for a parent to provide for their offspring without yet more taxation.
However, it is not.
The 'philosophy' resides elsewhere.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff