The Royal Parasites get an extra £1.5M

[nonegreen]

uli sees 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?

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

when your kids receive your money, it's incoming money to them, thus they must pay Income Tax just like everybody else does who has incoming money.

How many times does it have to be paid? You do not buy something from a store and pay at the till only to find you have to pay again at the door and yet again at the car park entrance and yet further find when you get home you have yet again to pay before you can have the goods. If M&S adopted this policy their customers would desert in droves. The government however seems to think this is a perfectly reasonable policy ie its the basis for "road pricing". Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Income tax should be capped at 3% we dont need a big gummint. This is only a little place.

[thinfourth2]

nonegreen said:

uli sees 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?

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

when your kids receive your money, it's incoming money to them, thus they must pay Income Tax just like everybody else does who has incoming money.

How many times does it have to be paid? You do not buy something from a store and pay at the till only to find you have to pay again at the door and yet again at the car park entrance and yet further find when you get home you have yet again to pay before you can have the goods. If M&S adopted this policy their customers would desert in droves. The government however seems to think this is a perfectly reasonable policy ie its the basis for "road pricing". Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Income tax should be capped at 3% we dont need a big gummint. This is only a little place.

Okay we sack the royals thats you saved 69p

Now you do know your entire income tax bill goes to the welfare system or are you perfecty happy with this?

[Parrot of Doom]

nonegreen said:

Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Nonners. The Queen is the only person in the country who can, quite legally, kill Gordon Brown.

Are you certain you want her sacked

[Zod]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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.

Not enough people see to get that HMRC gets several bites at every pound you earn: income tax and national insurance first, then VAT and/or duty on most of what you spend, stamp duty if you buy a house or shares, capital gains tax on assets that you sell, having bought them out of taxed income and then finally inheritance tax on the whole lot above the threshold on an estate paid for out of your life's taxed income. There are of course far more taxes than those I have just mentioned.

[bobbylondonuk]

ideal tax system:

flat income tax on salary
reduced flat corp tax on business profits compared to salary (to reflect risk taking)
tax refund on asset finance charges (net income used to pay interest on buying assets)
tax refund on voluntary donation to not for profit organisation (to facilitate charity and social development funding based on the ideas of general population)
flat tax rates for capital gains
tax refund for Private education costs and Insurances for pension, health, unemployment, death and disability. (no govt involvement, no cost to employers, low welfare system cost)
Council tax based on income for public services(local area upkeep, health, education, council housing:council housing occupants to work at minimum wage on council jobs to reduce overall costs and eliminate benefits culture)
Road and fuel taxes to be used exclusively on developing infrastructure for alternate fuels,transport and better roads.

positive effect: social costs are low, regional inhabitants take responsibility to better their areas, success is rewarded by better quality of life.

negative effect: areas with low income and low employment will degenerate. This can be solved by government funding for innovative and modern ideas for bringing up the quality of life in those areas to get them up to the levels of other areas with better employment, income and economic growth.

Idea is that the successful people pay their taxes reasonably and the government governs the country to concentrate on where those taxes need to be invested to increase overall regional equality.


The monarchy reflects the mood of the people. right now the royals dont look happy do they? what does it say about the people?

Edited by bobbylondonuk on Wednesday 8th July 12:03

[jimmyb]

fesuvious said:

The biggest problem with the Royal family as I see it is the lack of certain arguaments for
i.e
They provide moral compass
They set the bar
They represent our country's best interests
They hold Government to account

obviously 'they' should be replaced with 'Her Majesty'.

Thats the great shame.

Until then those that would seek to demolish Great Britains history, heritage and constitution have what many consider to be a valid debate.

C'mon Your Majesty, grow a pair and lead, set the example, show us you are in charge.

You can keep my 69p this year, hell, lets make it a tenner, but read my sentence above and act on it. That way we can take the first step towards being a strong nation.

Its far more than coincidence that the massive decline in public, moral and societies standards has all come about at the same time as the Monarchs standing among much of the public opinion has fallen.

Hear HEar. I would happily pay a tenner a year to the royals too providing they sorted the current mess out. Get on with it and dissolve parliament.

[oyster]

XitUp said:

jimmyb said:

XitUp said:

Wouldn't happen. She knows the government could get rid of her if they wanted, remember, we have an uncodified constitution.

this is what gets me i dont see how. The army will follow the Quuen before parliament i would bet my life on it hence the numpties in parliament have absolutely no teeth in this situation.Most of the leaders of our armed services detest the government but are big fans of the queen. Go to any military base and their figurehead the queen is everywhere.

They will follow whoever pays them.

And in your single line reply lies the reason why I find republican views so repulsive. They are never about emotion, or feelings, or trust, or pride, or a sense of belonging, or ambition. They are always about money. How very boring.

[s2art]

oyster said:

XitUp said:

jimmyb said:

XitUp said:

Wouldn't happen. She knows the government could get rid of her if they wanted, remember, we have an uncodified constitution.

this is what gets me i dont see how. The army will follow the Quuen before parliament i would bet my life on it hence the numpties in parliament have absolutely no teeth in this situation.Most of the leaders of our armed services detest the government but are big fans of the queen. Go to any military base and their figurehead the queen is everywhere.

They will follow whoever pays them.

And in your single line reply lies the reason why I find republican views so repulsive. They are never about emotion, or feelings, or trust, or pride, or a sense of belonging, or ambition. They are always about money. How very boring.

Not just that, he seems to think its the government who pays the armed forces.

[Airbag]

ExChrispy Porker said:

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

This is usually the case, however irrespective of the fact than inheritance tax stands to lose me an not unsubstantial sum of money I still support a high levy. Why? Because passing money from generation to generation passes inequality from generation to generation and detracts from the ideal of a meritocracy, an ideal to which I think societies should aspire more. Daddy having done well shouldn't mean you get to coast through life. I recognize that this is an unpopular idea, particularly among the people who frequent this forum, but I feel there is an argument to be made none the less.

Let the allegations of class warfare begin!

[esselte]

Airbag said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

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

This is usually the case, however irrespective of the fact than inheritance tax stands to lose me an not unsubstantial sum of money I still support a high levy. Why? Because passing money from generation to generation passes inequality from generation to generation and detracts from the ideal of a meritocracy, an ideal to which I think societies should aspire more. Daddy having done well shouldn't mean you get to coast through life. I recognize that this is an unpopular idea, particularly among the people who frequent this forum, but I feel there is an argument to be made none the less.

Let the allegations of class warfare begin!

No class warfare..I reckon anyone who owns a half reasonable house these days will fall into IHT territory and I think that after this gov. keep talking about it being a "millionaires' tax" a lot of people lose sight of that fact... after I have worked hard all my life (and been taxed on it all) why should the government get even more..?

[Airbag]

esselte said:

Airbag said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

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

This is usually the case, however irrespective of the fact than inheritance tax stands to lose me an not unsubstantial sum of money I still support a high levy. Why? Because passing money from generation to generation passes inequality from generation to generation and detracts from the ideal of a meritocracy, an ideal to which I think societies should aspire more. Daddy having done well shouldn't mean you get to coast through life. I recognize that this is an unpopular idea, particularly among the people who frequent this forum, but I feel there is an argument to be made none the less.

Let the allegations of class warfare begin!

No class warfare..I reckon anyone who owns a half reasonable house these days will fall into IHT territory and I think that after this gov. keep talking about it being a "millionaires' tax" a lot of people lose sight of that fact... after I have worked hard all my life (and been taxed on it all) why should the government get even more..?

I admit I would feel better about it if it didn't just fill government coffers, maybe some fancy private trust for education would be better?

[thinfourth2]

esselte said:

Airbag said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

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

This is usually the case, however irrespective of the fact than inheritance tax stands to lose me an not unsubstantial sum of money I still support a high levy. Why? Because passing money from generation to generation passes inequality from generation to generation and detracts from the ideal of a meritocracy, an ideal to which I think societies should aspire more. Daddy having done well shouldn't mean you get to coast through life. I recognize that this is an unpopular idea, particularly among the people who frequent this forum, but I feel there is an argument to be made none the less.

Let the allegations of class warfare begin!

No class warfare..I reckon anyone who owns a half reasonable house these days will fall into IHT territory and I think that after this gov. keep talking about it being a "millionaires' tax" a lot of people lose sight of that fact... after I have worked hard all my life (and been taxed on it all) why should the government get even more..?

Currently anyone who leaves an estate worth more then £325K

Or in other words anything more then a crappy semi detached newbuild in englandshire

[ExChrispy Porker]

Surely it is better to leave a substantial wedge to your children so that they do not end up relying on benefits. ( I am thinking of people who cannot support themselves due to disability).

If I work hard to make provision for my childrens future, why should anyone else have it. The whole idea is obscene.

[jamoor]

grumbledoak said:

At 69p per year they have cost me vastly less than that one-eyed Scottish . And, he doesn't bring in the tourists.

They are a bargain, IMO.

Are you suggesting that if tomorrow the Royal Family ceased to exist, no toursit will lay foot in the United Kingdom again?

Don't be daft.

The emperors from the Ming Dynasty have gone long ago, but tourists still flock to the Forbidden City.

[jamoor]

elster said:

You want to remove the main reason people tourists come to London, to see the Queen?

No tourists wouldn't come if she was removed, as then it is just a building.

What the Christ????

I think less than 0.0000000001% of tourists actually see the queen.

It's much like saying Warwick castle is just a building because William the Conquerer doesn't live there.

Heck, the King of Spain doesn't live in the Royal Palace of Madrid.

[nonegreen]

thinfourth2 said:

nonegreen said:

uli sees 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?

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

when your kids receive your money, it's incoming money to them, thus they must pay Income Tax just like everybody else does who has incoming money.

How many times does it have to be paid? You do not buy something from a store and pay at the till only to find you have to pay again at the door and yet again at the car park entrance and yet further find when you get home you have yet again to pay before you can have the goods. If M&S adopted this policy their customers would desert in droves. The government however seems to think this is a perfectly reasonable policy ie its the basis for "road pricing". Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Income tax should be capped at 3% we dont need a big gummint. This is only a little place.

Okay we sack the royals thats you saved 69p

Now you do know your entire income tax bill goes to the welfare system or are you perfecty happy with this?

If you look at the royal spin site even they admit the 69p is bullst. Its more lake 30 to 40 quid and its too much. Only a fraction of the tax is spent on benfits. A pathetic few pounds a week benfit is chicken feed in comparison to the huge salaries paid to millions of public sector workers, most of whom are surplus to requirements.

[nonegreen]

Parrot of Doom said:

nonegreen said:

Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Nonners. The Queen is the only person in the country who can, quite legally, kill Gordon Brown.

Are you certain you want her sacked

What rubbish, the queen may have some constitutional power but she knows full well thats the end of the Royals if she ever uses it. People in this country who still deliver this claptrap about royals having this that and the other clout and all the armed forces crap about overthrowing the elected government is all tripe. If any such Royal coup de gras happened, within 24 hours the UN would have this place under martial law while the EU sorted out how they were going to redistribute our wealth. Therfore its time the silly old bat went west.

[esselte]

nonegreen said:

Only a fraction of the tax is spent on benfits.

Here you go nonners...more spent on benefits than is taken in income tax...

[s2art]

nonegreen said:

Parrot of Doom said:

nonegreen said:

Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Nonners. The Queen is the only person in the country who can, quite legally, kill Gordon Brown.

Are you certain you want her sacked

What rubbish, the queen may have some constitutional power but she knows full well thats the end of the Royals if she ever uses it. People in this country who still deliver this claptrap about royals having this that and the other clout and all the armed forces crap about overthrowing the elected government is all tripe. If any such Royal coup de gras happened, within 24 hours the UN would have this place under martial law while the EU sorted out how they were going to redistribute our wealth. Therfore its time the silly old bat went west.

Completely bonkers NG. For starters its impossible for the head of state to commit a coup, they already are head of state! Secondly where were the UN (lol!, BTW stop whatever you are smoking... the UN?????, just where are the UN forces going to come from, and why would the UN break international law?) in 1975 when the Queen dissolved the Aussie parliament?
Lastly, how on earth is forcing an election a coup to start with?

[tinman0]

nonegreen said:

Parrot of Doom said:

nonegreen said:

Its time we smashed the public sector starting by sacking the royals and the quangos. Then start the civil servants on the road building gangs.

Nonners. The Queen is the only person in the country who can, quite legally, kill Gordon Brown.

Are you certain you want her sacked

What rubbish, the queen may have some constitutional power but she knows full well thats the end of the Royals if she ever uses it. People in this country who still deliver this claptrap about royals having this that and the other clout and all the armed forces crap about overthrowing the elected government is all tripe. If any such Royal coup de gras happened, within 24 hours the UN would have this place under martial law while the EU sorted out how they were going to redistribute our wealth. Therfore its time the silly old bat went west.

Yes and no. Its a very dangerous thing for the Queen to step in, however, I don't think she needs to as this Govt does not have long to run.

If we were at the 2 year mark, it could be a different story though. But we're not. We're in the final months of this regime, so she doesn't need to risk the monarchy by any intervention because June 6th 2010 and these muppets are history. They will be despatched by the electorate in time true traditions of a mailing at the ballot box.