9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?

[turbobloke]

BJG1 said:

I think this example highlights an interesting question. At what point does the freedom of tge individual stop trumping what's best for society?

In all conscience I can't see how handing £billions to politicians is the same as doing good for society. The greed of the impersonal state allied to the incompetence of politicians isn't a heartwarming prospect.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BoRED S2upid said:

Indeed if my children have to pay a single penny when we die I will have failed them. Must be horrible both your parents are dead I know you must be sad here's your tax bill now cough up.

That's very dramatic, and I can see a Daily Mail sad face headline. But in reality, that's not what happens, as you know full well.

The solicitor, or whoever is handling it, does not say "here's your tax bill, cough up." They say "we've sold the house, liquidised the assets, and here's your huge unearned windfall after deduction of tax.

So enough with the dead parents and the Fagin like taxman hounding the poor brokenhearted children (who are in most cases 40 or 50 with kids of their own.)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

djc206 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

IHT doesn't tax death, dead people can't pay tax. It taxes the beneficiaries of the estate.

Incorrect. The executor of the will is responsible for paying, the dead persons appointed living representative. Beneficiaries do not (normally) pay the tax.

You're incorrect. Dead people own nothing. They pay no tax, they have nothing and owe nothing. The estate owes the money. The executor pays it, but beneficiaries are the ones who lose the money. And in many cases, the executor(s) and beneficiary(ies) are one and the same.

Dead people don't even own their own corpse. That's why a kidney donor card counts for nothing if the next of kin don't give their consent.

If you don't own your kidney, you certainly don't own your house or bank account. So you can't pay tax on it.

[BJG1]

turbobloke said:

BJG1 said:

I think this example highlights an interesting question. At what point does the freedom of tge individual stop trumping what's best for society?

In all conscience I can't see how handing £billions to politicians is the same as doing good for society. The greed of the impersonal state allied to the incompetence of politicians isn't a heartwarming prospect.

I didn't say anything about handing it to politicians tbf.

[turbobloke]

BJG1 said:

turbobloke said:

BJG1 said:

I think this example highlights an interesting question. At what point does the freedom of tge individual stop trumping what's best for society?

In all conscience I can't see how handing £billions to politicians is the same as doing good for society. The greed of the impersonal state allied to the incompetence of politicians isn't a heartwarming prospect.

I didn't say anything about handing it to politicians tbf.

Fair enough at a stretch...in which case, what's the alternative to politicians that's best for society?

[djc206]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

djc206 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

IHT doesn't tax death, dead people can't pay tax. It taxes the beneficiaries of the estate.

Incorrect. The executor of the will is responsible for paying, the dead persons appointed living representative. Beneficiaries do not (normally) pay the tax.

You're incorrect. Dead people own nothing. They pay no tax, they have nothing and owe nothing. The estate owes the money. The executor pays it, but beneficiaries are the ones who lose the money. And in many cases, the executor(s) and beneficiary(ies) are one and the same.

Dead people don't even own their own corpse. That's why a kidney donor card counts for nothing if the next of kin don't give their consent.

If you don't own your kidney, you certainly don't own your house or bank account. So you can't pay tax on it.

I'm not incorrect. You're arguing a separate point. My quoted statement above is correct, it's exactly what the HMRC website says about IHT so if you disagree feel free to take it up with them.

You can't lose something you never had.

[BJG1]

turbobloke said:

Fair enough at a stretch...in which case, what's the alternative to politicians that's best for society?

I think the best thing for society is for the assets to be distributed on the open market and the proceeds from that not ending up in one person's/a few people's hands.

I don't know what the best way is to go about that and in reality it's going to mean some form of Government involvement but generally that's what I'd like to see us move toward.

I'm not really bothered with a few million here and there being passed on, not a lot you can do about that and it doesn't have a huge material impact but a 25 year old has been handed a fortune sufficient to put a man in 10 Downing Street or topple Governments in Africa if he so wishes. He controls vast amounts of valuable real estate in the world's capital and can generally bend the world to his will - he's done nothing to 'earn' this considerable power and that is of concern to me.

It's worth noting their family fortune and home stretches back to the 1500s - I just think it's totally mental that so many men have hugely benefited from this estate merely because their father died. It's pathetic.

Edited by BJG1 on Saturday 20th August 21:25

[TwigtheWonderkid]

djc206 said:

You can't lose something you never had.

You can't pay tax on something that isn't yours.

[Welshbeef]

BJG1 said:

I think the best thing for society is for the assets to be distributed on the open market and the proceeds from that not ending up in one person's/a few people's hands.

I don't know what the best way is to go about that and in reality it's going to mean some form of Government involvement but generally that's what I'd like to see us move toward.

I'm not really bothered with a few million here and there being passed on, not a lot you can do about that and it doesn't have a huge material impact but a 25 year old has been handed a fortune sufficient to put a man in 10 Downing Street or topple Governments in Africa if he so wishes. He controls vast amounts of valuable real estate in the world's capital and can generally bend the world to his will - he's done nothing to 'earn' this considerable power and that is of concern to me.

You seem to think that £10b is a lot - in isolation it's massive but in the real world it's small beer - Christ BPs cost for Macondo is near $60b.
It's a company in trust its property purchase and rental with hardly any sale of assets. It has a huge team of advisors as to what to buy next and what to do with the prevailing portfolio.

People seem hung up about his age too - he has lived in this lifestyle his whole life and his father was a huge family man so talking about business would be a real ongoing education to him to get him ready for running it. Clearly it was premature ISH but I'd wager he had s been given the tools to cardy in. Will he be as lucky as his father who knows.

[djc206]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You can't pay tax on something that isn't yours.

Clearly you can

[turbobloke]

BJG1 said:

turbobloke said:

Fair enough at a stretch...in which case, what's the alternative to politicians that's best for society?

I think the best thing for society is for the assets to be distributed on the open market and the proceeds from that not ending up in one person's/a few people's hands.

I don't know what the best way is to go about that and in reality it's going to mean some form of Government involvement but generally that's what I'd like to see us move toward.

Thanks. Blimey!

It would as you suggest be all about the devil in the detail. What will the arbitrary cut-off point be where this kicks in...mechanism of distribution...and so on.

However, regardless of detail, it's not something I'd support. It appears far too close to state-sponsored theft.

[BJG1]

Welshbeef said:

You seem to think that £10b is a lot - in isolation it's massive but in the real world it's small beer - Christ BPs cost for Macondo is near $60b.
It's a company in trust its property purchase and rental with hardly any sale of assets. It has a huge team of advisors as to what to buy next and what to do with the prevailing portfolio.

People seem hung up about his age too - he has lived in this lifestyle his whole life and his father was a huge family man so talking about business would be a real ongoing education to him to get him ready for running it. Clearly it was premature ISH but I'd wager he had s been given the tools to cardy in. Will he be as lucky as his father who knows.

Regardless of what education his father has given him he won't be a more efficient owner of the assets than they'd get on the open market. If his Dad has passed on all that experience to him he'll have no problem making his own money will he?

It's not small beer, it's more than enough money to wield huge influence over people. I know each of the Koch brothers is worth about 3 times as much and George Soros twice as much but look at the absolutely huge influence they are able to have on European and US politics.

[BJG1]

turbobloke said:

Thanks. Blimey!

It would as you suggest be all about the devil in the detail. What will the arbitrary cut-off point be where this kicks in...mechanism of distribution...and so on.

However, regardless of detail, it's not something I'd support. It appears far too close to state-sponsored theft.

State-sponsored theft exactly describes how these fortunes originated in the first place. Only fitting it's used to rectify the mistake made centuries ago.

[djc206]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dead people don't even own their own corpse. That's why a kidney donor card counts for nothing if the next of kin don't give their consent.

Legally my family don't need to consent, my having signed the organ donor register is enough for the NHS to plunder the treasure chest of alcohol pickled offal that is my body. In practice they respect families decisions to withdraw consent out of respect for the grieving but legally they can crack you open and help themselves if you've said they can.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

djc206 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You can't pay tax on something that isn't yours.

Clearly you can

No, you can't.

[turbobloke]

BJG1 said:

State-sponsored theft exactly describes how these fortunes originated in the first place. Only fitting it's used to rectify the mistake made centuries ago.

From what I've read, one of the Duke's distant ancestors owned (via marriage) 500 acres of swamp land in a part of what is now modern London. Apparently after about 100 years of doing nothing, 300 of those acres were drained and built upon (lavishly) to became Mayfair, Belgravia etc. Which part of what was effectively property development amounts to state-sponsored theft? It can't be the marxist "property is theft" mantra surely?

[Randy Winkman]

djc206 said:

The fact that they no longer have a pulse is the pointless technicality ........

[ikarl]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

djc206 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You can't pay tax on something that isn't yours.

Clearly you can

No, you can't.

Who pays the tax if the executor does not inherit any monies, but arranges the estate/assets etc for others?

[BJG1]

turbobloke said:

From what I've read, one of the Duke's distant ancestors owned (via marriage) 500 acres of swamp land in a part of what is now modern London. Apparently after about 100 years of doing nothing, 300 of those acres were drained and built upon (lavishly) to became Mayfair, Belgravia etc. Which part of what was effectively property development amounts to state-sponsored theft? It can't be the marxist "property is theft" mantra surely?

The clue to State sponsorship is in the name. He didn't call himself a Duke.

Regardless I don't think we'll agree on this. I don't think some dude 600 years ago owning a swamp should be allowed to result in a £9bn fortune for his ancestor. Clearly you don't mind that

[BigMon]

Anyone who has doubts as to just how right wing the PH forums are should browse this thread.

Laughable really.