What are your unpopular opinions?

[Funkycoldribena]

Shakermaker said:

Yep, All 350,000 of them. And they have a Nordic naming system, without traditional family names/surnames as we know them over here.

The rich diversity that we are allowed in giving our children pretty much any name we choose is much better than having a list or having to get approval in advance. Yes, it does lead to some interesting names. But so what?

My kids Wetherspoon and Rothman agree with you.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Doesn't that happen every month? If I didn't have to pay tax, I'd have more money to spend on my kids. But then again, I want my kids to grow up in a country with free healthcare and education and other stuff.

It was specifically related to inheritance tax. Would you rather your children benefit or the tax man?

[Dr Jekyll]

Shakermaker said:

Yep, All 350,000 of them. And they have a Nordic naming system, without traditional family names/surnames as we know them over here.

The rich diversity that we are allowed in giving our children pretty much any name we choose is much better than having a list or having to get approval in advance. Yes, it does lead to some interesting names. But so what?

Not just 'interesting' names. Embarrassing, even humiliating names. When a child is in tears saying 'I wish I had a proper name' just because their parents decided to prove how imaginative they were at the child's expense, that isn't acceptable.

[Shakermaker]

Dr Jekyll said:

Not just 'interesting' names. Embarrassing, even humiliating names. When a child is in tears saying 'I wish I had a proper name' just because their parents decided to prove how imaginative they were at the child's expense, that isn't acceptable.

A child can hate anything irrationally. What if they really really hate being called Charlotte? Its a proper name, but a child could hate it and scream blue murder that they hated the name Charlotte. Should the parents change that?

And also - many cultures have other naming conventions for their children which you might think is weird but is entirely normal to them. African names have all kinds of meanings to them which don't translate so directly into English but an African family living in the UK might choose their naming convention but in English.

[Funkycoldribena]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Miss World is here again with his one world ideas.
Can I camp in your garden tonight?

[PWeston]

Dr Jekyll said:

Truckosaurus said:

My unpopular opinion is that children should only be given names off an approved list of sensible names.

+1

Truckosaurus said:

eg. My cousin has a child named Honey, which can only be a hindrance in life. It is a Stripper's name not an accountant's.

Raw work at the font indeed.

Rum work surely!

[Dr Jekyll]

Shakermaker said:

A child can hate anything irrationally. What if they really really hate being called Charlotte? Its a proper name, but a child could hate it and scream blue murder that they hated the name Charlotte. Should the parents change that?

If the child hates it yes, Clive James hated being called Vivian so became Clive.

In any case it isn't names like Charlotte that are the problem. It's names like Tiger Lily and Saethryd that are simply a parental indulgence.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

yonex said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Doesn't that happen every month? If I didn't have to pay tax, I'd have more money to spend on my kids. But then again, I want my kids to grow up in a country with free healthcare and education and other stuff.

It was specifically related to inheritance tax. Would you rather your children benefit or the tax man?

Monthly income tax...would you rather your child benefitted or the taxman? It's the same scenario.

Tax has to be collected from somewhere. I would like to leave my kids as much as possible, but there would be little point if the bank manager could just transfer all their money I'd left them into his own account and there was no police force to report it to or no courts to try him for fraud.

So your question "who would you rather have the money, the govt or your kids" is a ridiculous one.

[Shakermaker]

Dr Jekyll said:

If the child hates it yes, Clive James hated being called Vivian so became Clive.

In any case it isn't names like Charlotte that are the problem. It's names like Tiger Lily and Saethryd that are simply a parental indulgence.

No problem with either of those names. I know what you're getting at but still..

Tiger Lily - people can call you Lily. The name is based on a classic literary character from 1904, its just more likely to exist now.

Saethyrd - Seth. Comes from the Bible.

My wife will tell you all the stupid names that she has seen in her time teaching in London - Chanellebelle, Wynter Holly, Crisitianoronaldo. Bad names. None of these children will be disadvantaged because of it

Naming convention is cyclical. If we all had the same name we would be running to try and make ourselves different some other way. Using our middle names .

And there are plenty of people who have successfully made a name for themselves where their unusual name has probably done them more favours than if they had just been called "Keith"

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

Calm down petal. I'm saying if I want to leave my house to my kids I should be able to and that they should be able to enjoy the full value of that - if I sold it I'd be able to so why shouldn't they if I leave it to them?

You are saying they should be able to enjoy the full value of it but not saying why they should be exempt from paying tax on money received like most of us have to do every payday.

No, I'm saying they should pay their taxes like they and everyone else does, but if I want to gift them something they can have it without having to pay tax on it.

Of course you can gift it to them, you can do it today. Then make sure you live another 7 years and they won't have to pay tax on it. Or is the idea that they only get it when you no longer have a use for it?

I know that, but why should it matter whether I’m dead or not as to whether they pay tax on it or not? Why can’t they just have my stuff if I want them to have it?

Put simply, it's because the government needs money, same reason for any tax. Usually income has some tax free allowance, then after that it's taxed. You could say why should anyone ever have to pay tax on anything.

Why? We all pay our taxes, my point is specifically about inheritance.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Monthly income tax...would you rather your child benefitted or the taxman? It's the same scenario.

Tax has to be collected from somewhere. I would like to leave my kids as much as possible, but there would be little point if the bank manager could just transfer all their money I'd left them into his own account and there was no police force to report it to or no courts to try him for fraud.

So your question "who would you rather have the money, the govt or your kids" is a ridiculous one.

I don’t feel it is. I’m talking about inheritance tax, not monthly income tax.

[Mothersruin]

Shakermaker said:

If we all had the same name we would be running to try and make ourselves different some other way. Using our middle names .

Muslim boys have this issue - often their first name is a variation of Mohammed - they regularly use a middle name.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

yonex said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Monthly income tax...would you rather your child benefitted or the taxman? It's the same scenario.

Tax has to be collected from somewhere. I would like to leave my kids as much as possible, but there would be little point if the bank manager could just transfer all their money I'd left them into his own account and there was no police force to report it to or no courts to try him for fraud.

So your question "who would you rather have the money, the govt or your kids" is a ridiculous one.

I don’t feel it is. I’m talking about inheritance tax, not monthly income tax.

Oh dear! Your argument against inheritance tax is "I would rather my kids have the money than the govt". Why doesn't that argument apply to income tax, vat, insurance premium tax, stamp duty etc. etc.

Why is IHT better off with your kids yet all other taxes are better off with the govt? You really aren't making a very coherent case.

[glazbagun]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I agree with the second bit (which is the same almost every time you see a politician take a principled stand) but not the first-

An Exclusive Economic Zone is no different to any other border- gained and maintained by force and diplomacy.

We have large fish stocks off our coast, other nations don't. If they want to fish in/near our terretorial waters they must do so by agreement or not at all. Oil doesn't know it's near Norway, but that doesn't mean we can just take it.

We tried it on with Iceland once and lost after they threatened to leave NATO!

The EU is (quite rightly in many cases) a bogeyman in fishing circles, but even within the EU CPF framework, the UK didn't stand up for local fishing.

[Mothersruin]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

yonex said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Monthly income tax...would you rather your child benefitted or the taxman? It's the same scenario.

Tax has to be collected from somewhere. I would like to leave my kids as much as possible, but there would be little point if the bank manager could just transfer all their money I'd left them into his own account and there was no police force to report it to or no courts to try him for fraud.

So your question "who would you rather have the money, the govt or your kids" is a ridiculous one.

I don’t feel it is. I’m talking about inheritance tax, not monthly income tax.

Oh dear! Your argument against inheritance tax is "I would rather my kids have the money than the govt". Why doesn't that argument apply to income tax, vat, insurance premium tax, stamp duty etc. etc.

Why is IHT better off with your kids yet all other taxes are better off with the govt? You really aren't making a very coherent case.

I guess the argument is that it is whats left. Gross income has been heavily taxed all the way, and this is a compoubd on that - I suppose there's an argument for a specific property element, but not on the rest of an estate.

[Mothersruin]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Fair enough - so the best thing to do is to not exist, at least from a tax point of view.

[alorotom]

Jesus this threads turned into another bore from the finance forum ... blimey!

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

Calm down petal. I'm saying if I want to leave my house to my kids I should be able to and that they should be able to enjoy the full value of that - if I sold it I'd be able to so why shouldn't they if I leave it to them?

You are saying they should be able to enjoy the full value of it but not saying why they should be exempt from paying tax on money received like most of us have to do every payday.

No, I'm saying they should pay their taxes like they and everyone else does, but if I want to gift them something they can have it without having to pay tax on it.

Of course you can gift it to them, you can do it today. Then make sure you live another 7 years and they won't have to pay tax on it. Or is the idea that they only get it when you no longer have a use for it?

I know that, but why should it matter whether I’m dead or not as to whether they pay tax on it or not? Why can’t they just have my stuff if I want them to have it?

Put simply, it's because the government needs money, same reason for any tax. Usually income has some tax free allowance, then after that it's taxed. You could say why should anyone ever have to pay tax on anything.

Why? We all pay our taxes, my point is specifically about inheritance.

Yes, I gathered that. But what I asked you earlier is WHY they should be exempt from paying tax on money received like most of us have to do every payday. And the question, like its context, refers specifically to inheritance. So by all means make the case for there being no inheritance tax, but you won't be making much of a case if you can't go any further that just you don't want there to be any IHT.

[Blown2CV]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

they had to bring in laws in new zealand because there was a significant number of weirdo parents calling their kids really ridiculous things like 4Real, Vagina and Travesty.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.c...
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/02/new-zealand-up...

[E34-3.2]

I am think that you have to apply to the authorities in France when your child name might be a bit to cringy.