9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mr Whippy said:
Jeez I bet it almost works out cheaper to go on 24/7 cruises!
There are people that do this, live on board all year long, even when in dock between cruises. Get a good discount too for booking multiple cruises in advance. And get treated like a customer, not a patient. Although the ship will provide medical cover, they normally charge back for it so you need travel insurance too which adds to the price. But if you can afford it, why not?
I think some people stay year round in Premier inns at the lower end and people like Maggie lived in the Dorchester had an entire suite (all free as I understand it).
Also 24/7 I'm pretty confident grandparents would like to actually see their family? Kids and grandkids?
Welshbeef said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mr Whippy said:
Jeez I bet it almost works out cheaper to go on 24/7 cruises!
There are people that do this, live on board all year long, even when in dock between cruises. Get a good discount too for booking multiple cruises in advance. And get treated like a customer, not a patient. Although the ship will provide medical cover, they normally charge back for it so you need travel insurance too which adds to the price. But if you can afford it, why not?
I think some people stay year round in Premier inns at the lower end and people like Maggie lived in the Dorchester had an entire suite (all free as I understand it).
Also 24/7 I'm pretty confident grandparents would like to actually see their family? Kids and grandkids?
How about living in those Warner Hotels with lots of other old people, activities and the like. All in the UK. Just keep popping home when needed.
Then if something bad happens, chances are you'll be in hospital any way.
As for the very latter.
If the grandparents want to see their family, and have £70,000 a year to sink on care, why not spend the £70,000 and get their kids to look after them?
Most average couples could give up their jobs for a few years, especially if they're approaching retirement themselves any way... and live handsomely on that money split two ways (lower tax burden) and spend quality time before their parents go!
Jeez, I'd rather look after my mum or dad when they get to that point, than send them off to an old peoples home if it costs THAT much money, for what is likely far worse care than I could provide myself.
twoblacklines said:
Out of interest, if Father X dies and passes it on to single Son Y, and the next day, Son Y dies and passes it on to Son C, is Son C supposed to pay inheritence tax twice? Ie 80% of Father X's estate? Or just 40% of Father X's estate and 40% of Y-40%/X ?
Quick succession relief would apply. Need to know more? Google is your friend.ellroy said:
twoblacklines said:
Out of interest, if Father X dies and passes it on to single Son Y, and the next day, Son Y dies and passes it on to Son C, is Son C supposed to pay inheritence tax twice? Ie 80% of Father X's estate? Or just 40% of Father X's estate and 40% of Y-40%/X ?
Quick succession relief would apply. Need to know more? Google is your friend.Jockman said:
Kermit power said:
Surely the only fair method of taxation would be to abolish all taxes except for VAT?
Consumption based system rather one based on ability to pay?Taxpayers have the 'ability to pay' until their disposable income is taken away, this is surely a superficial and punitive means of assessing tax dues.
Low earners have the ability to pay more tax, but why?
High earners (top 1%) already pay ~30% of all income taxes on ~13% of income. The same question (why?) could then be asked but it's pointless.
Punishing the ability to pay - a surefire disincentive to working smarter / harder and to greater tax revenues that the UK tax system is addicted to.
turbobloke said:
Jockman said:
Kermit power said:
Surely the only fair method of taxation would be to abolish all taxes except for VAT?
Consumption based system rather one based on ability to pay?Taxpayers have the 'ability to pay' until their disposable income is taken away, this is surely a superficial and punitive means of assessing tax dues.
Low earners have the ability to pay more tax, but why?
High earners (top 1%) already pay ~30% of all income taxes on ~13% of income. The same question (why?) could then be asked but it's pointless.
Punishing the ability to pay - a surefire disincentive to working smarter / harder and to greater tax revenues that the UK tax system is addicted to.
The current system doffs its cap at both approaches. Does it have the balance right? I don't know.
Jockman said:
turbobloke said:
Jockman said:
Kermit power said:
Surely the only fair method of taxation would be to abolish all taxes except for VAT?
Consumption based system rather one based on ability to pay?Taxpayers have the 'ability to pay' until their disposable income is taken away, this is surely a superficial and punitive means of assessing tax dues.
Low earners have the ability to pay more tax, but why?
High earners (top 1%) already pay ~30% of all income taxes on ~13% of income. The same question (why?) could then be asked but it's pointless.
Punishing the ability to pay - a surefire disincentive to working smarter / harder and to greater tax revenues that the UK tax system is addicted to.
The current system doffs its cap at both approaches. Does it have the balance right? I don't know.
Politicians would hate it, of course, because it would shine the ultimate spotlight on the insane tax levels that we actually pay, and probably prompt a revolution, but other than that, I think it would be all good.
There would be nothing to say you'd have to have a flat rate of VAT on all goods, so you could have a lower rate on staples to avoid accusations of unfairly hitting the poor.
An obvious example of where it would be fairest would be on things like petrol. At the moment, we pay VED, fuel duty & VAT on motoring, plus the income tax on what you earned to pay with in the first place.
Replace those with a single VAT rate for fuel, and you actually get taxed according to how much fuel you use. Assuming for a moment that we actually believe in Climate Change and want to use taxation policy to control it, then this is much more finely tuned, as I could now choose to buy a nice V12 and drive it 500 miles a year and pay accordingly, and in the same vein, someone doing 20,000 miles a year in a s
tty old clunker belching out all sorts of crap also pays accordingly. You'd even be better rewarded for choosing to do your driving in off peak times if you could, thus hopefully reducing the jams a bit for those who can't.Kermit power said:
Replace those with a single VAT rate for fuel, and you actually get taxed according to how much fuel you use.
If we are going to start doing that, can we sort our road tax?It can't be fair that someone using a post 2005 S2000 doing 3k miles a year has to pay over £500 a year but you can buy a new diesel Golf and do 30k miles a year and pay either nothing, or £30 a year.
I know who's doing the most amount of damage to the roads and atmosphere...
TheLordJohn said:
Kermit power said:
Replace those with a single VAT rate for fuel, and you actually get taxed according to how much fuel you use.
If we are going to start doing that, can we sort our road tax?It can't be fair that someone using a post 2005 S2000 doing 3k miles a year has to pay over £500 a year but you can buy a new diesel Golf and do 30k miles a year and pay either nothing, or £30 a year.
I know who's doing the most amount of damage to the roads and atmosphere...
PurpleMoonlight said:
Taxing death is disgusting. Anyone that manages to avoid it is to be applauded.
If it where up to me it would be taxed more heavily above set amounts, trusts and inheiritence reinforces the aristocratic birthright/'good blood' society that we have been trying to move away from since victorian times, further redistribution of 'old money' puts people, mainly the young where the wealth divide is most felt, on a more even playing field. It also encourages the spending of wealth, meaning the elderly are encouraged to enjoy more of there retirement whilst simultainiously stimulating the economy.
caelite said:
If it where up to me it would be taxed more heavily above set amounts, trusts and inheiritence reinforces the aristocratic birthright/'good blood' society that we have been trying to move away from since victorian times, further redistribution of 'old money' puts people, mainly the young where the wealth divide is most felt, on a more even playing field.
It also encourages the spending of wealth, meaning the elderly are encouraged to enjoy more of there retirement whilst simultainiously stimulating the economy.
Some people will justify anything to get the benefits of someone else's hard work.It also encourages the spending of wealth, meaning the elderly are encouraged to enjoy more of there retirement whilst simultainiously stimulating the economy.
caelite said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Taxing death is disgusting. Anyone that manages to avoid it is to be applauded.
If it where up to me it would be taxed more heavily above set amounts, trusts and inheiritence reinforces the aristocratic birthright/'good blood' society that we have been trying to move away from since victorian times, further redistribution of 'old money' puts people, mainly the young where the wealth divide is most felt, on a more even playing field. It also encourages the spending of wealth, meaning the elderly are encouraged to enjoy more of there retirement whilst simultainiously stimulating the economy.
caelite said:
If it where up to me it would be taxed more heavily above set amounts, trusts and inheiritence reinforces the aristocratic birthright/'good blood' society that we have been trying to move away from since Victorian times
But we've only got worse as a society since those times...TheLordJohn said:
caelite said:
If it where up to me it would be taxed more heavily above set amounts, trusts and inheiritence reinforces the aristocratic birthright/'good blood' society that we have been trying to move away from since Victorian times
But we've only got worse as a society since those times...chow pan toon said:
TheLordJohn said:
caelite said:
If it where up to me it would be taxed more heavily above set amounts, trusts and inheiritence reinforces the aristocratic birthright/'good blood' society that we have been trying to move away from since Victorian times
But we've only got worse as a society since those times...1. The 'Benefit scroungers stealing my hard earned cash!' stereotype
2. Attacking the method of a statements delivery rather than the statement itself, not all of us bother proof reading every single post we make on an internet forum.
3. 'I miss the good old days when I could get trashed on opium and abuse the lower classes!'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff