What are your unpopular opinions?

[Francois de La Rochefoucauld]

chow pan toon said:

That's the way I think of it, like normal income but with a huge tax-free allowance. I imagine I will have a decent wedge to pay when the time comes, unless I can prevail on my mother to actually spend some of the money that my parents accumulated over a lifetime with no help from me.

The French already do this. 100k allowance I believe.

[blindswelledrat]

The Selfish Gene said:

ElectricSoup said:

Where is the "absolutely doesn't have to" line? It can't be defined. Me and my family, and you and yours, have the benefits of taxation every single day, even if you can't see or feel them always. Simply put, it allows the country to function in such a way that we can, with some unfortunate exceptions, go about our lives peacefully and happily. The veil of civilisation is very thin, and taxation is a part of it. We haven't got much choice but to trust the government to try its best to use the contributions we make in the best possible way but there will always be wastage of course. It is a price worth paying for a civil society in my mind.

I'm sorry I just don't agree. I'm very untrusting, and you are very trusting I think.

It can be defined. There are rules in places, that can be legally beaten. I would prefer to manage my own future and my families future rather than it be dictated to for the masses by a government that frankly isn't working in my best interests.

Completely agree with you Selfish.
There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.
So whilst I agree with taxation in general, because I am not an Neanderthal, I spend half my life in perpetual rage at quite how horrifically our money is wasted on politicians whims and the last thing I want to happen is yet more of mine or my family's money going to waste for no other reason than we have had the misfortune to have a death in the family.

[ElectricSoup]

The Selfish Gene said:

ElectricSoup said:

Where is the "absolutely doesn't have to" line? It can't be defined. Me and my family, and you and yours, have the benefits of taxation every single day, even if you can't see or feel them always. Simply put, it allows the country to function in such a way that we can, with some unfortunate exceptions, go about our lives peacefully and happily. The veil of civilisation is very thin, and taxation is a part of it. We haven't got much choice but to trust the government to try its best to use the contributions we make in the best possible way but there will always be wastage of course. It is a price worth paying for a civil society in my mind.

I'm sorry I just don't agree. I'm very untrusting, and you are very trusting I think.

It can be defined. There are rules in places, that can be legally beaten. I would prefer to manage my own future and my families future rather than it be dictated to for the masses by a government that frankly isn't working in my best interests.

Fair enough, I'm not saying you aren't entitled to hold your views.

The way I see it, I've lived my life in peace, good health and relative prosperity thanks to the civil society we all contribute to, knowing there's a safety net if I fall. I prefer things that way to an everyone-for-themselves approach, and I look to America for an example of a country which I truly wouldn't like to live in due to the way they approach these issues. We're none of us superman, our lives can and do fall out of our own control sometimes.

Good luck to you, and if you manage to legally pay less tax than you otherwise might, then that's your prerogative. It's probably a good thing that we have a situation in which views like yours and mine can be held and acted upon.

[anonymous-user]

The Selfish Gene said:

I'm sorry I just don't agree. I'm very untrusting, and you are very trusting I think.

It can be defined. There are rules in places, that can be legally beaten. I would prefer to manage my own future and my families future rather than it be dictated to for the masses by a government that frankly isn't working in my best interests.

Indeed. Just ask Clarence House

[The Selfish Gene]

ElectricSoup said:

Fair enough, I'm not saying you aren't entitled to hold your views.

The way I see it, I've lived my life in peace, good health and relative prosperity thanks to the civil society we all contribute to, knowing there's a safety net if I fall. I prefer things that way to an everyone-for-themselves approach, and I look to America for an example of a country which I truly wouldn't like to live in due to the way they approach these issues. We're none of us superman, our lives can and do fall out of our own control sometimes.

Good luck to you, and if you manage to legally pay less tax than you otherwise might, then that's your prerogative. It's probably a good thing that we have a situation in which views like yours and mine can be held and acted upon.

totally agreed - and you too. I find it genuinely massively noble that you hold those views. Incidentally I do actually wish I had your outlook, it must be rather calming!! Having dealt with the mafia that is the HMRC, and the incompetence first hand, it would take some significant changes for me to volunteer more tax than I thought was legally enforced.

[ElectricSoup]

The Selfish Gene said:

ElectricSoup said:

Fair enough, I'm not saying you aren't entitled to hold your views.

The way I see it, I've lived my life in peace, good health and relative prosperity thanks to the civil society we all contribute to, knowing there's a safety net if I fall. I prefer things that way to an everyone-for-themselves approach, and I look to America for an example of a country which I truly wouldn't like to live in due to the way they approach these issues. We're none of us superman, our lives can and do fall out of our own control sometimes.

Good luck to you, and if you manage to legally pay less tax than you otherwise might, then that's your prerogative. It's probably a good thing that we have a situation in which views like yours and mine can be held and acted upon.

totally agreed - and you too. I find it genuinely massively noble that you hold those views. Incidentally I do actually wish I had your outlook, it must be rather calming!! Having dealt with the mafia that is the HMRC, and the incompetence first hand, it would take some significant changes for me to volunteer more tax than I thought was legally enforced.

It's nice of you to say so, but I don't think it's noble at all. It's in my interests that civil society keeps functioning how it does. It's been fine these 48 years I've enjoyed it so far, after all.

[The Selfish Gene]

that to me feels like good luck rather than good management! :-)

[Mothersruin]

I think that's the issue - 'Mafia/incompetence'

If we had government that was fit for purpose, efficient and effective, I don't think anyone would have any issues.

It just seems like a cash grab on the dead to be pissed up the wall.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

Nope, likely to be house price inflation, especially in London and the SE, and no tax has ever been paid on it. Ever, by anyone.

[Blown2CV]

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

so what? The tenner I paid my window cleaner with has already had "40%+ tax paid on it" but does that mean he doesn't have to declare it?

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

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.

They’re not exempt from paying tax that you pay every pay day, they do exactly the same when it’s their pay day too. You seem to think that people who inherit are somehow not playing fair if by not paying tax because you have to - that isn’t the case, they’re paying tax too, the same as you.

I think IHT isn’t fair because, well, frankly, why should my kids have to lose a sizable proportion of what I want to give them? I earned it, I saved it, I accrued interest on it, I should be able to do what I like with it. In the meantime, while I’m earning I’m still paying the same taxes as everyone else, and while my kids are earning so will they, and after they’re the recipients of my estate, they’ll continue paying taxes just like you and everyone else.

Perhaps I could turn the question around: why should there be an inheritance tax? It really does sound like those in favour are because they think of it as some sort of jealousy tax and don’t want people getting something for nothing because they’re not so lucky themselves.

[The Selfish Gene]

Blown2CV said:

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

so what? The tenner I paid my window cleaner with has already had "40%+ tax paid on it" but does that mean he doesn't have to declare it?

if he has any sense he absolutely wouldn't.

[ElectricSoup]

The Selfish Gene said:

Blown2CV said:

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

so what? The tenner I paid my window cleaner with has already had "40%+ tax paid on it" but does that mean he doesn't have to declare it?

if he has any sense he absolutely wouldn't.

See that's where I can't possibly agree with you. It all breaks down when tax isn't paid. Look at any country with massive societal problems, and you're likely to find massive tax evasion. Greece, for example. All those people hoarding and hiding their money, where does it get everyone? Precisely nowhere. They have to live in the fked society too. Put up with crime, riots, corruption, God knows what. It's self defeating.

[The Selfish Gene]

I totally get where you're coming from but.............

It stings massively that a person should pay 40% on the money they earn..........then the next day, have to give a tenner to a window cleaner , and he has to pay 20/40% of that.

I obviously understand that's against the rules - just doesn't seem fair on the window cleaner........

It's why Taxi drivers didn't want card machines and even now pretend they don't work.

[Lanker22]

ElectricSoup said:

The Selfish Gene said:

Blown2CV said:

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

so what? The tenner I paid my window cleaner with has already had "40%+ tax paid on it" but does that mean he doesn't have to declare it?

if he has any sense he absolutely wouldn't.

See that's where I can't possibly agree with you. It all breaks down when tax isn't paid. Look at any country with massive societal problems, and you're likely to find massive tax evasion. Greece, for example. All those people hoarding and hiding their money, where does it get everyone? Precisely nowhere. They have to live in the fked society too. Put up with crime, riots, corruption, God knows what. It's self defeating.

Society can do one. I look out for myself and those closest to me, and I suspect most people are the same. If I can reasonably pay less tax somehow then you can bet your ass I’ll pay less tax.

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

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.

They’re not exempt from paying tax that you pay every pay day, they do exactly the same when it’s their pay day too. You seem to think that people who inherit are somehow not playing fair if by not paying tax because you have to - that isn’t the case, they’re paying tax too, the same as you.

I think IHT isn’t fair because, well, frankly, why should my kids have to lose a sizable proportion of what I want to give them? I earned it, I saved it, I accrued interest on it, I should be able to do what I like with it. In the meantime, while I’m earning I’m still paying the same taxes as everyone else, and while my kids are earning so will they, and after they’re the recipients of my estate, they’ll continue paying taxes just like you and everyone else.

Perhaps I could turn the question around: why should there be an inheritance tax? It really does sound like those in favour are because they think of it as some sort of jealousy tax and don’t want people getting something for nothing because they’re not so lucky themselves.

Why should there be an inheritance tax?

For the same reason as there's a tax on property, on purchases, on interest, on some imports. Because the government needs it. I daresay they could make more efficient use of it and I daresay they spend it on stuff you don't approve of. You've yet to put forward a viable reason why inheritances should not be taxed. The argument that the money has already been taxed fails, because virtually every time money which has already been taxed is passed from one person to another then the recipient is taxed on it.

You'll have noted the window cleaner example above, I'm sure.

So if you can come up with a particular reason why inheritance should not be taxed I would be interested to hear it, but please don't come back with the 'it's already been taxed' response, it doesn't work.

[Blown2CV]

The Selfish Gene said:

Blown2CV said:

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

so what? The tenner I paid my window cleaner with has already had "40%+ tax paid on it" but does that mean he doesn't have to declare it?

if he has any sense he absolutely wouldn't.

are you being serious with that comment?

[Blown2CV]

The Selfish Gene said:

I totally get where you're coming from but.............

It stings massively that a person should pay 40% on the money they earn..........then the next day, have to give a tenner to a window cleaner , and he has to pay 20/40% of that.

I obviously understand that's against the rules - just doesn't seem fair on the window cleaner........

It's why Taxi drivers didn't want card machines and even now pretend they don't work.

so tax evasion should be actively encouraged in the salt of the earth make ends meet working classes, but with the rich they should be disemboweled and publicly shamed?

[Blown2CV]

Lanker22 said:

ElectricSoup said:

The Selfish Gene said:

Blown2CV said:

blindswelledrat said:

There is also the fact that whoever leaves the money has very likely paid 40%+ tax on these earnings already anyway.

so what? The tenner I paid my window cleaner with has already had "40%+ tax paid on it" but does that mean he doesn't have to declare it?

if he has any sense he absolutely wouldn't.

See that's where I can't possibly agree with you. It all breaks down when tax isn't paid. Look at any country with massive societal problems, and you're likely to find massive tax evasion. Greece, for example. All those people hoarding and hiding their money, where does it get everyone? Precisely nowhere. They have to live in the fked society too. Put up with crime, riots, corruption, God knows what. It's self defeating.

Society can do one. I look out for myself and those closest to me, and I suspect most people are the same. If I can reasonably pay less tax somehow then you can bet your ass I’ll pay less tax.

so you've never used any public service?

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

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.

They’re not exempt from paying tax that you pay every pay day, they do exactly the same when it’s their pay day too. You seem to think that people who inherit are somehow not playing fair if by not paying tax because you have to - that isn’t the case, they’re paying tax too, the same as you.

I think IHT isn’t fair because, well, frankly, why should my kids have to lose a sizable proportion of what I want to give them? I earned it, I saved it, I accrued interest on it, I should be able to do what I like with it. In the meantime, while I’m earning I’m still paying the same taxes as everyone else, and while my kids are earning so will they, and after they’re the recipients of my estate, they’ll continue paying taxes just like you and everyone else.

Perhaps I could turn the question around: why should there be an inheritance tax? It really does sound like those in favour are because they think of it as some sort of jealousy tax and don’t want people getting something for nothing because they’re not so lucky themselves.

Why should there be an inheritance tax?

For the same reason as there's a tax on property, on purchases, on interest, on some imports. Because the government needs it. I daresay they could make more efficient use of it and I daresay they spend it on stuff you don't approve of. You've yet to put forward a viable reason why inheritances should not be taxed. The argument that the money has already been taxed fails, because virtually every time money which has already been taxed is passed from one person to another then the recipient is taxed on it.

You'll have noted the window cleaner example above, I'm sure.

So if you can come up with a particular reason why inheritance should not be taxed I would be interested to hear it, but please don't come back with the 'it's already been taxed' response, it doesn't work.

Don’t focus on just one bit, you’re trying to say the whole gist of my argument is that it’s already been taxed. I only mentioned that because it seemed as though you were saying it wasn’t fair because you were paying you4 taxes yet the recipient of an inheritance got it for free. They’re still paying their taxes, same as you and me. My argument, and I’ve said this a number of times now, is that if I have a million pounds in the bank and want to give that million pounds to my kids then I should be able to and that they should be able to receive that full amount.

It’s nothing to do with what other taxes people pay, you might as well just tax everything if your argument is that lots of other stuff is taxed so why not that as well. Because the government need it isn’t a viable argument either.