What are your unpopular opinions?

[anonymous-user]

Antony Moxey said:

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.

Exactly. Why don’t they tax lottery wins?

[Blown2CV]

yonex said:

Antony Moxey said:

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.

Exactly. Why don’t they tax lottery wins?

it's not classed as income.

[Algarve]

yonex said:

Exactly. Why don’t they tax lottery wins?

Because they tax the ticket at purchase instead. They take more tax in that way.

[anonymous-user]

Algarve said:

Because they tax the ticket at purchase instead. They take more tax in that way.

You pay stamp duty on a house purchase.

[Blown2CV]

yonex said:

Algarve said:

Because they tax the ticket at purchase instead. They take more tax in that way.

You pay stamp duty on a house purchase.

did you misunderstand that one

[anonymous-user]

Blown2CV said:

did you misunderstand that one

If you rectaxed when buying property why isn’t it the same rule as a lottery ticket? Shame we all haven’t got a ‘sovreign’ agreement where we can park the odd £20m, seems it’s ok for the Queen? I guess Charles, no stranger to tax avoidance, will have a similar advantage?

[Blown2CV]

yonex said:

Blown2CV said:

did you misunderstand that one

If you rectaxed when buying property why isn’t it the same rule as a lottery ticket? Shame we all haven’t got a ‘sovreign’ agreement where we can park the odd £20m, seems it’s ok for the Queen? I guess Charles, no stranger to tax avoidance, will have a similar advantage?

the ticket revenues are a lot higher than the total payout. That's kind of the point. So, if you were to pick one to tax why not pick the bigger number....?

[anonymous-user]

Blown2CV said:

the ticket revenues are a lot higher than the total payout. That's kind of the point. So, if you were to pick one to tax why not pick the bigger number....?

Why not tax both?

[The Moose]

Blown2CV said:

yonex said:

Blown2CV said:

did you misunderstand that one

If you rectaxed when buying property why isn’t it the same rule as a lottery ticket? Shame we all haven’t got a ‘sovreign’ agreement where we can park the odd £20m, seems it’s ok for the Queen? I guess Charles, no stranger to tax avoidance, will have a similar advantage?

the ticket revenues are a lot higher than the total payout. That's kind of the point. So, if you were to pick one to tax why not pick the bigger number....?

Why pick one...

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

...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...

Go right ahead, give it to them, and I certainly won't be arguing that they should be taxed on it. I trust that will be leaving you with enough to live on?

[MTech535]

Lanker22 said:

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.

What is to stop someone bigger and tougher than you deciding that they fancy taxing you of 100% of your income?

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

...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...

Go right ahead, give it to them, and I certainly won't be arguing that they should be taxed on it. I trust that will be leaving you with enough to live on?

But that’s kind of my point. Why should it matter if I give it to them now or after I’m dead? I know we all moan about tax and obviously tax is necessary but I just don’t agree with inheritance tax.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

yonex said:

Blown2CV said:

the ticket revenues are a lot higher than the total payout. That's kind of the point. So, if you were to pick one to tax why not pick the bigger number....?

Why not tax both?

Because if winnings were taxed, fewer people would play, and the tax revenue overall would be less. It's simple maths.

People will say "to hell with it, I'm not playing the lotto, because they tax the winnings", but they won't say "to hell with it, I'm not buying a house because they'll tax it when I die."

Anyway, all these people who are against IHT, can they please let us have their plan for making up the shortfall. What taxes should increase to compensate for the drop in revenue, or what new taxes should they introduce.

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

...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...

Go right ahead, give it to them, and I certainly won't be arguing that they should be taxed on it. I trust that will be leaving you with enough to live on?

But that’s kind of my point. Why should it matter if I give it to them now or after I’m dead? I know we all moan about tax and obviously tax is necessary but I just don’t agree with inheritance tax.

Well, for one thing you can't give it to them after you are dead, because as someone said earlier, dead people don't do stuff, it's part of being dead. Hanging on to it until you are dead and can't spend it or live in it seems kind of clingy. Hand it over now.

[Blown2CV]

can we draw a line under the tax debate now.... maybe it is unpopular to think tax is understandable.

Here is an unpopular view:

Most people in the UK appear to feel the need to have something to hate. Something to blame. Anything that goes wrong in their life - yep it's because of that thing i have no influence over that I can get away with blaming and hating.

It could be a group of people... obviously a different group to the one they see themselves as belonging within. It is quite often authoritative bodies and representatives.

It just seems to be comforting to externalise any bad things which have affected you in your life. It's NEVER my fault. ALL of it is down to those fkers that i hate. Whoever they may be.

Police. Tories. Teachers. Immigrants. Maybe at a slightly lower level - The residents of the next town along. Rival football team.

The weird bit is almost no one has that insight. They all feel it to their core, as if it is the most justifiable and accurate belief.

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

...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...

Go right ahead, give it to them, and I certainly won't be arguing that they should be taxed on it. I trust that will be leaving you with enough to live on?

But that’s kind of my point. Why should it matter if I give it to them now or after I’m dead? I know we all moan about tax and obviously tax is necessary but I just don’t agree with inheritance tax.

Well, for one thing you can't give it to them after you are dead, because as someone said earlier, dead people don't do stuff, it's part of being dead. Hanging on to it until you are dead and can't spend it or live in it seems kind of clingy. Hand it over now.

I can, that’s what a will’s for. I presume you weren’t simply being pedantic.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Because if winnings were taxed, fewer people would play, and the tax revenue overall would be less. It's simple maths.

People will say "to hell with it, I'm not playing the lotto, because they tax the winnings", but they won't say "to hell with it, I'm not buying a house because they'll tax it when I die."

Anyway, all these people who are against IHT, can they please let us have their plan for making up the shortfall. What taxes should increase to compensate for the drop in revenue, or what new taxes should they introduce.

Do you honestly think IHT is the tipping point of taxation?

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

...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...

Go right ahead, give it to them, and I certainly won't be arguing that they should be taxed on it. I trust that will be leaving you with enough to live on?

But that’s kind of my point. Why should it matter if I give it to them now or after I’m dead? I know we all moan about tax and obviously tax is necessary but I just don’t agree with inheritance tax.

Well, for one thing you can't give it to them after you are dead, because as someone said earlier, dead people don't do stuff, it's part of being dead. Hanging on to it until you are dead and can't spend it or live in it seems kind of clingy. Hand it over now.

I can, that’s what a will’s for. I presume you weren’t simply being pedantic.

I'm not sure you've grasped the point about being dead. Dead people don't do stuff. If you want them to have it and you don't want the tax man to have what would be a fairly small percentage of it (assuming you are married), then don't be tight, hand it over now. Keeping it until you have no further use for it doesn't sound very generous to me.

[JustinF]

All religion need to be banned and any attempt to indoctrinate ones children into it needs to be prosecuted as a mental health assault.

[E34-3.2]

JustinF said:

All religion need to be banned and any attempt to indoctrinate ones children into it needs to be prosecuted as a mental health assault.

You need to move to France for that. Secular education system is pretty much what you describe. A teacher in France is "by the law" not authorise to wear any religious signs or talk about it. Does it stop stop us believing? No.