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

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

Author
Discussion

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl

Vizsla

922 posts

123 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Taxing death is disgusting.
IHT doesn't tax death, dead people can't pay tax. It taxes the beneficiaries of the estate.

The government needs to raise tax. To pay for stuff we all need, to a greater or lesser degree. The ideal tax is one that doesn't plunge the person paying into poverty, nor stop them from buying stuff because that keeps the economy going. In this respect IHT is perfect. The dead person doesn't notice it at all, being dead and all that, and the beneficiaries of the estate are still getting a decent amount they never had yesterday, and haven't earned. What's not to like.

And as for being taxed twice, well in most cases it isn't. Most of my wealth comes from (London) house price inflation, on which I haven't paid a bean in tax. I'm talking hundreds of thousands, totally unearned and tax free. And even if it was tax on money already taxed, so what. I've been taxed on my income, and then I pay VAT, insurance tax, fuel tax, council tax etc out of taxed income. So being taxed on taxed money is nothing new.
As is the case for a high proportion of the population, me included. In my experience, this point always gets quietly glossed over when the 'I slogged my guts out' whingers get on their high horse, the very same people who gleefully used to brag that 'my house is earning more than I do'.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Jonesy23 said:
Or applying CGT in all situations so you can't even move between identical houses without losing a fortune in the process and therefore basically making it impractical to ever move?
You can't do that now because of stamp duty.

IMO - GCT on all properties (albeit with a discount for main residences) would be much fairer than stamp duty. At least it would allow you to make sideways moves without getting hammered for tax if the market was flat or you were in negative equity. With stamp duty - you pay regardless.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Vizsla said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Taxing death is disgusting.
IHT doesn't tax death, dead people can't pay tax. It taxes the beneficiaries of the estate.

The government needs to raise tax. To pay for stuff we all need, to a greater or lesser degree. The ideal tax is one that doesn't plunge the person paying into poverty, nor stop them from buying stuff because that keeps the economy going. In this respect IHT is perfect. The dead person doesn't notice it at all, being dead and all that, and the beneficiaries of the estate are still getting a decent amount they never had yesterday, and haven't earned. What's not to like.

And as for being taxed twice, well in most cases it isn't. Most of my wealth comes from (London) house price inflation, on which I haven't paid a bean in tax. I'm talking hundreds of thousands, totally unearned and tax free. And even if it was tax on money already taxed, so what. I've been taxed on my income, and then I pay VAT, insurance tax, fuel tax, council tax etc out of taxed income. So being taxed on taxed money is nothing new.
As is the case for a high proportion of the population, me included. In my experience, this point always gets quietly glossed over when the 'I slogged my guts out' whingers get on their high horse, the very same people who gleefully used to brag that 'my house is earning more than I do'.
Apart from that, whatever happened to everyone getting on their bikes & earning their own way in life?
I'm amazed that PH attracts so many people who are so against the central ethos of capitalism.

Monospace

4,814 posts

262 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Inheritance is often "getting it without earning it." Not particularly fair and it does encourage wasters who "can't be bothered to work hard because I'm going to inherit money." While too many smart hard working people are massively disadvantaged and disincentived by it all. But on the flip side, if someone's earned something it doesn't feel right for it to be taken by the state when they die.

You should be able to give some to who you want. But some should be redistributed. Maybe mandatory contribution to institutions/bodies/organisations or even charities - all of the deceased's choosing.

Hosenbugler

1,854 posts

101 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl
Only in the eyes of those obsessed with other peoples assets and earnings.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl
Only in the eyes of those obsessed with other peoples assets and earnings.
I don't begrudge paying inheritance tax on my assets.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
krisdelta said:
If income tax and corporation tax were structured correctly and a simple "one rule for all" then there would be no need to have this hugely destructive tax.

Oddly enough it's the wealthy who are most able to afford the best advice to circumvent the absurdly complex rules. Written by the wealthy, for the wealthy. No rules / laws have been broken?

That said, inheritance tax is not a good tax and should be abolished for all.
Nice post.

WOuld it even be possible to get the UK system into the modern ages? To rip it all up and have a nice basic system which is the same for everybody?

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl
Only in the eyes of those obsessed with other peoples assets and earnings.
That doesn't make sense at all. You're saying that the country needs to save 5bn PA and anyone that thinks that's unlikely is obsessed with other people's money?

Hosenbugler

1,854 posts

101 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl
Only in the eyes of those obsessed with other peoples assets and earnings.
I don't begrudge paying inheritance tax on my assets.
Your choice, your assets and earnings. I have sympathy for your heirs.

Hosenbugler

1,854 posts

101 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
el stovey said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl
Only in the eyes of those obsessed with other peoples assets and earnings.
That doesn't make sense at all. You're saying that the country needs to save 5bn PA and anyone that thinks that's unlikely is obsessed with other people's money?
Read it again.

aka_kerrly

12,416 posts

209 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
krisdelta said:
Oddly enough it's the wealthy who are most able to afford the best advice to circumvent the absurdly complex rules. Written by the wealthy, for the wealthy. No rules / laws have been broken?

There is nothing odd about the fact that those with money can pay for the best advice on how to retain/grow their fortune rather than give any of it away.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Hosenbugler said:
el stovey said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
zygalski said:
Hosenbugler said:
Inheritance tax is just another example of state stealing, an assault on the wishes of the deceased. My estate is and will be sewn up tight, the bds will not get a cent from my estate when I go.

The threshold is £325000 , which means just about any homeowner in the home counties is susceptible to being collared if they have the misfortune to die. fking disgraceful , the odious pointy nosed Labour lefties love it of course , obsessed with other peoples money.
So which tax would you put up to compensate for the loss of £5bn pa inheritance tax revenue?
None, spend less.
Ok, so that's your credibility gone in 3 words. rofl
Only in the eyes of those obsessed with other peoples assets and earnings.
That doesn't make sense at all. You're saying that the country needs to save 5bn PA and anyone that thinks that's unlikely is obsessed with other people's money?
Read it again.
So you're saying the country needs to spend 5bn PA less and anyone who thinks that unlikely is obsessed with other people's money?



basherX

2,464 posts

160 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
In fairness, a £5bn reduction in spending is only about 0.6% of the budget and you'd have to be very attached to big(ger) government to assume that we couldn't find savings at that level.

BJG1

5,966 posts

211 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Jonesy23 said:
When I read this I think "this is someone with no assets of their own who is really keen to get the state to give them someone else's"
Well you'd be totally wrong then, wouldn't you?

Randy Winkman

16,017 posts

188 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
basherX said:
In fairness, a £5bn reduction in spending is only about 0.6% of the budget and you'd have to be very attached to big(ger) government to assume that we couldn't find savings at that level.
Couldn't you say that about anything? The current government is trying to save money, not give it away.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
If we get rid of inheritance tax, which tax should we put up to make up the difference?
I don't know - the state might consider requiring less revenue. How did the UK (And the US for that matter) manage to build roads, railways, fine building etc without such levels of taxation?


basherX

2,464 posts

160 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
basherX said:
In fairness, a £5bn reduction in spending is only about 0.6% of the budget and you'd have to be very attached to big(ger) government to assume that we couldn't find savings at that level.
Couldn't you say that about anything? The current government is trying to save money, not give it away.
Yup, you could do and I do take the point. However I just don't see the affordability justification to be a strong one- I'm much more interested in the policy side of the discussion. Which, as ever here, starts out polarised and then further entrenches from there...

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
Of course one could have an alternative view.

The Grosvenor family have been ridiculously rich for generations. Hundreds of years. And, thanks to property value inflation and a fair amount of shrewd management, the family wealth has grown exponentially.

The UK on the other hand, has been unbelievably rich during the days of empire when we exploited the world's resources for our own gain, and bossed the slave trade, and then we got into a few expensive wars and were poor, and then we got North Sea oil and we wasted that, and now we're billions in debt.

Is there not a case, rather than moaning about not getting IHT for the Grosvenors, that perhaps the government should be handing over the country's entire tax revenue over to their control and saying "here you go Dukey, you and your team are obviously more financial astute that we are, you look after it and run the bloody country!

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Saturday 20th August 2016
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The UK on the other hand, has been unbelievably rich during the days of empire when we exploited the world's resources for our own gain, and bossed the slave trade, and then we got into a few expensive wars and were poor, and then we got North Sea oil and we wasted that, and now we're billions in debt.

The country has been in debt since the 1600s, and during the early 1800s the national debt hit 250% of GDP.


Also the UK did not invent the slave trade, but was instrumental in abolishing it.