The Royal Parasites get an extra £1.5M

[Saddle bum]

CY88 said:

nonegreen said:

The queen is not the most famous person there are literally hundreds of people more easily recognised than she is. The notion that a 5th rate public speaker has achieved more than say Beckam, Best, Botham, Hill, Stewart or indeed Jagger, Mercury or McCartney is a very silly one apart for anus horibilis what has she ever said that was of any consequense?

Quite honestly one of the daftest things I've read in this thread.

Orf with his head!

[thinfourth2]

BarnatosGhost said:

esselte said:

BarnatosGhost said:

esselte said:

BarnatosGhost said:

If there was no tax on inheritance, then there would have to be more tax on something else - where do you propose we put it?

Rubbish,they'd just have less of our money to waste....if spending was properly controlled I'm sure we could have a lower tax burden in this country....

I'd certainly agree with that.

I'm not supportinve of the current govt. and I'm not a *fan* of tax, I just recognise that it is a necessary evil, and think that IHT is one of the less painful ways of paying it.

Spending cuts would be better.....

1. TAX = NECESSARY

2. TAXED WHILST ALIVE = UNPLEASANT

3. TAXED WHILST DEAD = NOT UNPLEASANT

spending cuts won't negate taxation. It will still be necessary. So better to pay it when dead.

If spending cuts reduce taxation then great, but reduce income tax, not IHT.

Edited by BarnatosGhost on Tuesday 7th July 14:48

Are you thick?

You don't pay inheritance tax while you are dead you pay it while you are very very alive.

And it is the total value of the estate so any houses must be sold to pay it so hence lots of large country homes are either left to rot or sold to make flats which is frankly a bit st.

How about family run businesses if they get left to the kids should we just give it to the government to destroy?

And to take you logic a little but further of you can't spend it when you are dead what about money you don't spend while you are alive so the government could quite happily have all your savings as you aren't using it so you won't miss it

[BarnatosGhost]

CY88 said:

nonegreen said:

The queen is not the most famous person there are literally hundreds of people more easily recognised than she is. The notion that a 5th rate public speaker has achieved more than say Beckam, Best, Botham, Hill, Stewart or indeed Jagger, Mercury or McCartney is a very silly one apart for anus horibilis what has she ever said that was of any consequense?

Quite honestly one of the daftest things I've read in this thread.

She's just bumbled along really. As a nation we've not needed her for much during 50 years of generally peaceful and generally prosperous time. She is a figurehead. Figureheads are literally that - they're not really tasked with doing much of any importance.

She is my favourite of the bunch, because she's very active in public appearances and opening things etc. Busy, but not exactly 'active'. But as head of the family she has completely failed to create a family worthy of much respect - nobody looks forward to what will come once she dies - I think republicans and monarchists are united in that much.

Enormously famous, but you couldn't put a finger on a very good reason why. Similar to Jade Goody I suppose...;)

[BarnatosGhost]

thinfourth2 said:

BarnatosGhost said:

esselte said:

BarnatosGhost said:

esselte said:

BarnatosGhost said:

If there was no tax on inheritance, then there would have to be more tax on something else - where do you propose we put it?

Rubbish,they'd just have less of our money to waste....if spending was properly controlled I'm sure we could have a lower tax burden in this country....

I'd certainly agree with that.

I'm not supportinve of the current govt. and I'm not a *fan* of tax, I just recognise that it is a necessary evil, and think that IHT is one of the less painful ways of paying it.

Spending cuts would be better.....

1. TAX = NECESSARY

2. TAXED WHILST ALIVE = UNPLEASANT

3. TAXED WHILST DEAD = NOT UNPLEASANT

spending cuts won't negate taxation. It will still be necessary. So better to pay it when dead.

If spending cuts reduce taxation then great, but reduce income tax, not IHT.

Edited by BarnatosGhost on Tuesday 7th July 14:48

Are you thick?

You don't pay inheritance tax while you are dead you pay it while you are very very alive.

And it is the total value of the estate so any houses must be sold to pay it so hence lots of large country homes are either left to rot or sold to make flats which is frankly a bit st.

How about family run businesses if they get left to the kids should we just give it to the government to destroy?

And to take you logic a little but further of you can't spend it when you are dead what about money you don't spend while you are alive so the government could quite happily have all your savings as you aren't using it so you won't miss it

You pay it out of your windfall. It is paid as money moves from a dead person to a living person. The living person still gets most of it. If anyone is living their life with the philosophy of being bailed out by a large inheritance my view is that their philosophy is wrong.

If you have to sell an inherited house to pay IHT, the worst case is you can use the remaining money to buy another house. You're still one house up on the deal.

I don't see how it causes country houses to be left to rot - that is caused by people who can't afford to run them. Thats life. Sell it. Making many small houses out of a small number of big houses is the way it has to be when thick aristocrats run out of money playing cards.

Family businesses and National Heritage houses qualify for relief from IHT - so thats a non-issue.

[Trommel]

BarnatosGhost said:

You pay it out of your windfall. It is paid as money moves from a dead person to a living person. The living person still gets most of it. If anyone is living their life with the philosophy of being bailed out by a large inheritance my view is that their philosophy is wrong.

The irony of it being that your namesake did what he did entirely as the result of a rather large inheritance.

[BarnatosGhost]

Trommel said:

BarnatosGhost said:

You pay it out of your windfall. It is paid as money moves from a dead person to a living person. The living person still gets most of it. If anyone is living their life with the philosophy of being bailed out by a large inheritance my view is that their philosophy is wrong.

The irony of it being that your namesake did what he did entirely as the result of a rather large inheritance.

Quite true. And I had a lot of fun with it, too.

But I could still have done it with 70%! Pip Pip!

Edited by BarnatosGhost on Tuesday 7th July 16:53

[Parrot of Doom]

BarnatosGhost said:

You pay it out of your windfall. It is paid as money moves from a dead person to a living person. The living person still gets most of it. If anyone is living their life with the philosophy of being bailed out by a large inheritance my view is that their philosophy is wrong.

If you have to sell an inherited house to pay IHT, the worst case is you can use the remaining money to buy another house. You're still one house up on the deal.

I don't see how it causes country houses to be left to rot - that is caused by people who can't afford to run them. Thats life. Sell it. Making many small houses out of a small number of big houses is the way it has to be when thick aristocrats run out of money playing cards.

Family businesses and National Heritage houses qualify for relief from IHT - so thats a non-issue.

Great, so I'm a successful businessman with a couple of kids, who aren't doing badly but weren't around when I made my niche in whatever made me rich. I love them both though, so I arrange to have my large estate given to them when I die. After all, I've spent the last 30 years working so my kids can have the fruits of my labour.

And then I die, and the government comes along and says "Thank.you.very.much, we'll be having that"

The government can fkoff. They taxed me on my earnings. They taxed my on my profits. They taxed me on various unavoidable expenses. They taxed me on the food I eat, and the fuel I burn. Now they want to tax me on whatever they didn't tax me for in the first place.

Are you a civil servant at HMCE?

[CY88]

BarnatosGhost said:

CY88 said:

nonegreen said:

The queen is not the most famous person there are literally hundreds of people more easily recognised than she is. The notion that a 5th rate public speaker has achieved more than say Beckam, Best, Botham, Hill, Stewart or indeed Jagger, Mercury or McCartney is a very silly one apart for anus horibilis what has she ever said that was of any consequense?

Quite honestly one of the daftest things I've read in this thread.

She's just bumbled along really. As a nation we've not needed her for much during 50 years of generally peaceful and generally prosperous time. She is a figurehead. Figureheads are literally that - they're not really tasked with doing much of any importance.

She is my favourite of the bunch, because she's very active in public appearances and opening things etc. Busy, but not exactly 'active'. But as head of the family she has completely failed to create a family worthy of much respect - nobody looks forward to what will come once she dies - I think republicans and monarchists are united in that much.

Enormously famous, but you couldn't put a finger on a very good reason why. Similar to Jade Goody I suppose...;)

Chances are that every adult in the country has an image of the Queen in their pocket right now. Probably several more delivered to them each day through the letter box. Same can't be said about Goody, thank god.

QE2 is part of the fabric of this country in a thankfully non-celebrity orientated way.

[BarnatosGhost]

CY88 said:

BarnatosGhost said:

CY88 said:

nonegreen said:

The queen is not the most famous person there are literally hundreds of people more easily recognised than she is. The notion that a 5th rate public speaker has achieved more than say Beckam, Best, Botham, Hill, Stewart or indeed Jagger, Mercury or McCartney is a very silly one apart for anus horibilis what has she ever said that was of any consequense?

Quite honestly one of the daftest things I've read in this thread.

She's just bumbled along really. As a nation we've not needed her for much during 50 years of generally peaceful and generally prosperous time. She is a figurehead. Figureheads are literally that - they're not really tasked with doing much of any importance.

She is my favourite of the bunch, because she's very active in public appearances and opening things etc. Busy, but not exactly 'active'. But as head of the family she has completely failed to create a family worthy of much respect - nobody looks forward to what will come once she dies - I think republicans and monarchists are united in that much.

Enormously famous, but you couldn't put a finger on a very good reason why. Similar to Jade Goody I suppose...;)

Chances are that every adult in the country has an image of the Queen in their pocket right now. Probably several more delivered to them each day through the letter box. Same can't be said about Goody, thank god.

QE2 is part of the fabric of this country in a thankfully non-celebrity orientated way.

you're dead right - but the image could be of anything. Its immaterial.

I was trolling with the Goody remark. Apologies.

[Trommel]

uli sees said:

It's called Income Tax for a reason....

Er, it's called Inheritance Tax.

[BarnatosGhost]

Parrot of Doom said:

BarnatosGhost said:

You pay it out of your windfall. It is paid as money moves from a dead person to a living person. The living person still gets most of it. If anyone is living their life with the philosophy of being bailed out by a large inheritance my view is that their philosophy is wrong.

If you have to sell an inherited house to pay IHT, the worst case is you can use the remaining money to buy another house. You're still one house up on the deal.

I don't see how it causes country houses to be left to rot - that is caused by people who can't afford to run them. Thats life. Sell it. Making many small houses out of a small number of big houses is the way it has to be when thick aristocrats run out of money playing cards.

Family businesses and National Heritage houses qualify for relief from IHT - so thats a non-issue.

Great, so I'm a successful businessman with a couple of kids, who aren't doing badly but weren't around when I made my niche in whatever made me rich. I love them both though, so I arrange to have my large estate given to them when I die. After all, I've spent the last 30 years working so my kids can have the fruits of my labour.

And then I die, and the government comes along and says "Thank.you.very.much, we'll be having that"

The government can fkoff. They taxed me on my earnings. They taxed my on my profits. They taxed me on various unavoidable expenses. They taxed me on the food I eat, and the fuel I burn. Now they want to tax me on whatever they didn't tax me for in the first place.

Are you a civil servant at HMCE?

I'm hoping to leave my kids some inheritance. I don't mind if 30% doesn't reach them - they should be very grateful for whatever I choose not to give to charity (a better cause, if i divorce sentimentality for a second).

No, in your situation above the state comes along and says, "thanks, we'll be having a small portion of that - you kids can keep the majority of it, and lay about doing whatever you want. Good job your dad was a worker wasn't it, you lucky lazy little devils."

I can see why people don't like paying tax - i don't either, but I can't understand why people get so aerated about this particular tax. I honestly think its one of the better ones.

[tinman0]

uli sees said:

Trommel said:

uli sees said:

It's called Income Tax for a reason....

Er, it's called Inheritance Tax.

LOL

same principle, if you have money coming to you, you pay tax on it...whether that's work earnings, inheritance, bank interest, capital gains.... etc etc etc

it's only fair a person who receives money pays tax on that money

Gordon Brown says that "you are all good little drones".

[CY88]

BarnatosGhost said:

you're dead right - but the image could be of anything. Its immaterial.

Yes, the image could be of anything, but it isn't

even when one of the "more famous" people suggested by the OP gets in on the act



Your response about it being "immaterial" merely unlines the inherent part that the image of the Queen plays in our everyday lives, without us even realising it.

[Trommel]

uli sees said:

LOL

Quite.

[BarnatosGhost]

CY88 said:

BarnatosGhost said:

you're dead right - but the image could be of anything. Its immaterial.

Yes, the image could be of anything, but it isn't

even when one of the "more famous" people suggested by the OP gets in on the act



Your response about it being "immaterial" merely unlines the inherent part that the image of the Queen plays in our everyday lives, without us even realising it.

But it isn't a 'part in our everyday lives', its just an image here and there. Other countries manage fine without her.

Lets put illustrious people on the money like Darwin and Faraday and celebrate innovation and creativity, not privilege and circumstance.

[s2art]

uli sees said:

Trommel said:

uli sees said:

It's called Income Tax for a reason....

Er, it's called Inheritance Tax.

LOL

same principle, if you have money coming to you, you pay tax on it...whether that's work earnings, inheritance, bank interest, capital gains.... etc etc etc

it's only fair a person who receives money pays tax on that money

So you think lottery winners pay tax on their winnings do you?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

uli sees said:

Trommel said:

uli sees said:

It's called Income Tax for a reason....

Er, it's called Inheritance Tax.

LOL

same principle, if you have money coming to you, you pay tax on it...whether that's work earnings, inheritance, bank interest, capital gains.... etc etc etc

it's only fair a person who receives money pays tax on that money

The tax has already been paid on the money. It is two bites of the same cherry.

Bin inheritance tax and then to cover the tax shortfall bin a large chunk of the welfare state, a lot of whom get my money and pay no tax on it but do get free dental and a host of other things I'm not allowed as I have too much money apparently.

[Parrot of Doom]

BarnatosGhost said:

Parrot of Doom said:

BarnatosGhost said:

You pay it out of your windfall. It is paid as money moves from a dead person to a living person. The living person still gets most of it. If anyone is living their life with the philosophy of being bailed out by a large inheritance my view is that their philosophy is wrong.

If you have to sell an inherited house to pay IHT, the worst case is you can use the remaining money to buy another house. You're still one house up on the deal.

I don't see how it causes country houses to be left to rot - that is caused by people who can't afford to run them. Thats life. Sell it. Making many small houses out of a small number of big houses is the way it has to be when thick aristocrats run out of money playing cards.

Family businesses and National Heritage houses qualify for relief from IHT - so thats a non-issue.

Great, so I'm a successful businessman with a couple of kids, who aren't doing badly but weren't around when I made my niche in whatever made me rich. I love them both though, so I arrange to have my large estate given to them when I die. After all, I've spent the last 30 years working so my kids can have the fruits of my labour.

And then I die, and the government comes along and says "Thank.you.very.much, we'll be having that"

The government can fkoff. They taxed me on my earnings. They taxed my on my profits. They taxed me on various unavoidable expenses. They taxed me on the food I eat, and the fuel I burn. Now they want to tax me on whatever they didn't tax me for in the first place.

Are you a civil servant at HMCE?

I'm hoping to leave my kids some inheritance. I don't mind if 30% doesn't reach them - they should be very grateful for whatever I choose not to give to charity (a better cause, if i divorce sentimentality for a second).

No, in your situation above the state comes along and says, "thanks, we'll be having a small portion of that - you kids can keep the majority of it, and lay about doing whatever you want. Good job your dad was a worker wasn't it, you lucky lazy little devils."

I can see why people don't like paying tax - i don't either, but I can't understand why people get so aerated about this particular tax. I honestly think its one of the better ones.

Right. So the family home that has been in use for the last 200 years, and now which cannot be afforded by these children who have lived in it for the last 30 years - that just gets sold to someone else, right?

Honestly, the willingness of some people to bend over and accept as correct the principle that a government can just help itself to money to spend on whatever it likes...


Anyway, I hope the OP gets charged with Seditious libel.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Inheritance tax is an abomination, and anyone who supports the idea is clearly not the full shilling ( or is not rich enough to worry )

[thinfourth2]

uli sees said:

Trommel said:

uli sees said:

It's called Income Tax for a reason....

Er, it's called Inheritance Tax.

LOL

same principle, if you have money coming to you, you pay tax on it...whether that's work earnings, inheritance, bank interest, capital gains.... etc etc etc

it's only fair a person who receives money pays tax on that money

Fair???

Which part of fair am i failing to understand here where that money grabbing snot gobbling half brain prime fking minister takes a huge chunk of money and gives it to a fat fkwitted baby factory fking chav

just fk off with your fair business

At least my 69p that pays for the royals gives me something it might be very little but her majesty is unlikely to come up to me in the street and threaten to kick my head in unless i give her a cigarette and i really don't see prince william nicking my car so he can handbrake it round a housing estate, thats prince harrys job