What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
E34-3.2 said:
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. That said, banning things ALWAYS stops people doing it doesn't it?
singlecoil said:
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.
Do I have to make my point for the umpteenth time? Agree with it, disagree with it, but going round the houses with spurious arguments that are either patronising or pedantic don’t really add to the discussion. techiedave said:
I think that people that say they look after themselves and their family and society can do one are probably
1. Travellers
2. Have traveller relations
3. Have been prosecuted for possession of drugs
4. Dont have a TV licence
5. Have 4 TVs or more in the house
That's not unpopular with me,.. 1. Travellers
2. Have traveller relations
3. Have been prosecuted for possession of drugs
4. Dont have a TV licence
5. Have 4 TVs or more in the house
The World seems roughly in balance (just), in terms of who spoils it and who makes it better. An example of the spoiling could be in a Hospital's Accident and Emergency Department. A drunken 'clubber' has cut his precious head trying to run without paying from a kebab shop. He has to wait a few minutes with a few of his foul-mouthed chums before treatment. He takes exception to the nurse, (male or female, it matters not) who tries to dress the wound. The dabbing causes the cut to smart, this and the waiting causes the drunk to assault the nurse, and anyone else who intervenes, finishing off with a kicking. I wish I could say that this is an extreme and probably isolated example for illustration purposes, but you and I know it is all too common. If it is not obvious, or you are a drunken clubber who can justify this behaviour somehow, I will explain that the drunken lout is the spoiler and the nurse the mender. Proof that there is a balance maintained between the two is that there are still Hospitals, and Accident and Emergency Departments, and Nurses dealing with this sort of thing, despite the above everyday occurrence.
I saw an example of a person who called 999 for an Ambulance to take her down to Post Office to pay a Gas Bill. I leave it to the imagination how many unjustified calls are made for Ambulances. By how much do all fleets have to be over provided for that reason? Most strange, though in the same crazy vein as the poor nurse who suffered in the first paragraph, is, why are Emergency Vehicles and their staff sometimes attacked? It would serve them dead right, anyone who did that, to be left twitching on the kitchen tiles, when the great axe genuinely falls, but that is not they way our carers work.
Vandalism is a good example of jumping on the scales, trying to defeat the repairers and making the World a ruin. Is it caused by envy, anarchism, evilness or what? Who do the spoilers think is going to put everything right? Who do they think is going to pay?
I have an answer. I appeal to vandals to have pride in what you do. Have your own facilities and swagger with the 'V' badge on the jacket. Do not deign to travel or live with the namby-pambies, they are beneath contempt, all that car washing and putting litter in the stupid little baskets. There will be 'V' and 'Non-V' (Vandal and Non-Vandal) carriages on the railways. In the 'V' class, you pay three times more than 'Non-V', you sit, if you can, on slashed seats, the toilet is broken etc; but you can perform vandalism if you can find anything unbroken. Buses, the same. Bus shelters, ditto. In fact the 'V' bus shelters can be erected ready-ruined. (Two types - Youthful bending and scratching, or Strong Young Male Total Destruction.) Towns and Cities also. Gothsville and Vandalton for the proudly anti-social. The Council Tax is five times higher than normal, there is no public transport, there is barely a pane of glass intact All the keep left bollards are lying down. The tree-stump nursery employs two sapling breakers. Cars are pre-scratched and for recreation there are concrete blocks stored in convenient piles on all the motorway bridges.
Antony Moxey said:
singlecoil said:
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.
Do I have to make my point for the umpteenth time? Agree with it, disagree with it, but going round the houses with spurious arguments that are either patronising or pedantic don’t really add to the discussion. But I will try another approach. This money that you want your children to have after you are dead is meaningless unless there is a society in which recognises that the money has value and will hand over goods and services in exchange for it. Establishing and maintaining such a society cannot happen unless people contribute to it, and yet you don't want either you or your children (depending on how you look at it) to pay a share. Fortunately this society also has rules and the ability to enforce them so whether you want to pay a share or not will make no difference.
You can, of course, avoid that tax by handing it over now, but I expect that idea doesn't appeal...
Blown2CV said:
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?
ked society too. Put up with crime, riots, corruption, God knows what. It's self defeating.By the way I didn't say that people should pay ZERO tax, only that if I had the opportunity to pay less I would take it - as would most others. As it stands I think we pay far too much tax in this country for what usually are shoddy public services.
techiedave said:
I think that people that say they look after themselves and their family and society can do one are probably
1. Travellers
2. Have traveller relations
3. Have been prosecuted for possession of drugs
4. Dont have a TV licence
5. Have 4 TVs or more in the house
Can I have 50 quid? 1. Travellers
2. Have traveller relations
3. Have been prosecuted for possession of drugs
4. Dont have a TV licence
5. Have 4 TVs or more in the house
We are both part of the same "society" after all.
Lanker22 said:
Blown2CV said:
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?ked society too. Put up with crime, riots, corruption, God knows what. It's self defeating.By the way I didn't say that people should pay ZERO tax, only that if I had the opportunity to pay less I would take it - as would most others. As it stands I think we pay far too much tax in this country for what usually are shoddy public services.
yonex said:
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?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.
Have you given the response you have because you don't have an answer to my question?
Blown2CV said:
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.
I think you're right. I think the number 1 victim of this at the moment is "small print". When something goes wrong in any deal, insurance claim, warranty issue, etc, it's always "they've hidden behind the small print."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 f
kers 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.
So here's an unpopular opinion.....there is rarely any small print in contracts these days, just normal sized print you were too f
king lazy to read. Blown2CV said:
Lanker22 said:
Blown2CV said:
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?ked society too. Put up with crime, riots, corruption, God knows what. It's self defeating.By the way I didn't say that people should pay ZERO tax, only that if I had the opportunity to pay less I would take it - as would most others. As it stands I think we pay far too much tax in this country for what usually are shoddy public services.
So in your world anybody criticising how public services are run would also be uncooperative with the police and moan at them during an investigation. I guess the NHS is perfect then and every stretch of road in this country is in fantastic condition.
And being treated by a doctor for cancer has nothing to do with what I said. Americans do not have a taxpayer-funded healthcare system...are they all dying of cancer over there?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, but I do think if IHT was abolished, that loss of income to the govt would have to be got back from somewhere.
Have you given the response you have because you don't have an answer to my question?
Or they could reduce spending, which would negate the need for IHT income in the first place. Have you given the response you have because you don't have an answer to my question?
singlecoil said:
Antony Moxey said:
singlecoil said:
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.
Do I have to make my point for the umpteenth time? Agree with it, disagree with it, but going round the houses with spurious arguments that are either patronising or pedantic don’t really add to the discussion. But I will try another approach. This money that you want your children to have after you are dead is meaningless unless there is a society in which recognises that the money has value and will hand over goods and services in exchange for it. Establishing and maintaining such a society cannot happen unless people contribute to it, and yet you don't want either you or your children (depending on how you look at it) to pay a share. Fortunately this society also has rules and the ability to enforce them so whether you want to pay a share or not will make no difference.
You can, of course, avoid that tax by handing it over now, but I expect that idea doesn't appeal...
Antony Moxey said:
don’t really care whether you think my point is right or not, you’re continually missing the point of my, err, point. Saying I don’t want to contribute and don’t want my children to contribute is wrong: I do and so do they through their normal taxation, same as everyone else.
I'm sorry about missing your point, perhaps I'm not so much missing it as fundamentally disagreeing with it.The point of mine that you are missing is that you haven't shown why inheritance should be exempt from tax when other situations where money passes from one person to another are not.
AIUI you feel that because if you give it to them now it would not be taxed so you should be able to give it to them after you dead but there is an important difference- if you give it to them now then you have lost the use of that money, or house, or whatever, and they have gained it. If you wait until after you are dead that doesn't count because you have lost the use of it anyway.
Lanker22 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, but I do think if IHT was abolished, that loss of income to the govt would have to be got back from somewhere.
Have you given the response you have because you don't have an answer to my question?
Or they could reduce spending, which would negate the need for IHT income in the first place. Have you given the response you have because you don't have an answer to my question?
singlecoil said:
Nobody is being pedantic. I can't help it if you feel patronised. You can make your point as often as you like but that won't make it right.
But I will try another approach. This money that you want your children to have after you are dead is meaningless unless there is a society in which recognises that the money has value and will hand over goods and services in exchange for it. Establishing and maintaining such a society cannot happen unless people contribute to it, and yet you don't want either you or your children (depending on how you look at it) to pay a share. Fortunately this society also has rules and the ability to enforce them so whether you want to pay a share or not will make no difference.
You can, of course, avoid that tax by handing it over now, but I expect that idea doesn't appeal...
Does 'society' mean a market or the government?But I will try another approach. This money that you want your children to have after you are dead is meaningless unless there is a society in which recognises that the money has value and will hand over goods and services in exchange for it. Establishing and maintaining such a society cannot happen unless people contribute to it, and yet you don't want either you or your children (depending on how you look at it) to pay a share. Fortunately this society also has rules and the ability to enforce them so whether you want to pay a share or not will make no difference.
You can, of course, avoid that tax by handing it over now, but I expect that idea doesn't appeal...
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
Nobody is being pedantic. I can't help it if you feel patronised. You can make your point as often as you like but that won't make it right.
But I will try another approach. This money that you want your children to have after you are dead is meaningless unless there is a society in which recognises that the money has value and will hand over goods and services in exchange for it. Establishing and maintaining such a society cannot happen unless people contribute to it, and yet you don't want either you or your children (depending on how you look at it) to pay a share. Fortunately this society also has rules and the ability to enforce them so whether you want to pay a share or not will make no difference.
You can, of course, avoid that tax by handing it over now, but I expect that idea doesn't appeal...
Does 'society' mean a market or the government?But I will try another approach. This money that you want your children to have after you are dead is meaningless unless there is a society in which recognises that the money has value and will hand over goods and services in exchange for it. Establishing and maintaining such a society cannot happen unless people contribute to it, and yet you don't want either you or your children (depending on how you look at it) to pay a share. Fortunately this society also has rules and the ability to enforce them so whether you want to pay a share or not will make no difference.
You can, of course, avoid that tax by handing it over now, but I expect that idea doesn't appeal...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff