Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
cod'ead wrote:What about the wishes of the deceased?
They're dead, they are no longer sentient, presumably they died knowing the situation regarding IHT, so basically their wishes no longer count for anything.
Legacies are unearned income and are taxed as such. I really can't see the problem with IHT, especially when applied to increased property values. Just how hard does someone work to watch over an increase in house prices?
Oh and it wasn't me who suggested a 100% IHT rate BTW
I've not problem with IHT at a reasonable rate - and at the moment it's fairly reasonable. And I have no problem with people finding loopholes in IHT - even if that means envelopes of £50 notes.
It's the 100% rubbish people are spouting that's ridiculous (I realise you didn't suggest it).
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Diavolo Rosso wrote:The outlook of many in this country has to completely charge in my opinion. We begrudge people who work hard to earn a lot of money for themselves yet deem it perfectly acceptable for people who have done sod all to earn that money to inherit it. How about re-focusing our tax system to encourage people to keep what they themselves have earned and to remove assets from those who haven't?
I can understand people wanting to leave a parting present for their families, perhaps to pay for a car for their grandson or a bit of cash towards their Uni fees, but I just don't see why we allow people to inherit £100,000s.
Who begrudges people working hard to earn a lot of money? I don't. Good luck to 'em.
But it's their money, it gets taxed, and it's theirs to do what they like with. If some kids end up inheriting millions what's the problem? It's not like they'll be a drain on resources, is it? If they choose to sit in a big house and party for the next 60 years, who cares? Meanwhile, many of the wealthy will actually go on to create or sustain businesses and jobs.
If it's the last will & testament of the deceased to pass on their wealth - money they have earned and paid tax on - why is it anyone else's business? Smells fishily of jealousy.
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Dally wrote:The money should be given to "good causes." If kids know they are in line for good inheitances they often become lazy and useless, despite their expensive educations. If the spongers on benefits need to work to "improve themselves" to drive the economy forward surely even more so those who have had a priveleged education. I used to work with a really nice lad whose father was a very successful businessman. As soon as the lad struggled with an exam in his mid 20s he just gave up never to work again because he couldn't see the point. He'd inherited his first tranche of money at 21 which allowed him to buy a house in an expensive area and a brand new top of the range BMW and anything else he wanted. He was in line for a few 10s of million more so he decided to watch telly (rather than Hugh Grant in About a Boy).
So you're suggesting no-one should be permitted to make a Will, and everyone's assets are to be seized at the moment of death?
If this lad truly decided to watch telly for the rest of his life, what business is that of yours? With millions in the bank he's not costing anyone anything is he? His choice to live an unproductive life is is sod all to do with anyone else other than a source of gossip and ill-disguised jealousy.
The whole concept of 100% IHT is a nonsense, and a laughable one at that.
Cronus wrote:So you're suggesting no-one should be permitted to make a Will, and everyone's assets are to be seized at the moment of death?
If this lad truly decided to watch telly for the rest of his life, what business is that of yours? With millions in the bank he's not costing anyone anything is he? His choice to live an unproductive life is is sod all to do with anyone else other than a source of gossip and ill-disguised jealousy.
The whole concept of 100% IHT is a nonsense, and a laughable one at that.
I have no problem with people doing what they want. What I object to is the economic stagnation that results from inherited wealth. The classic family business is started by a hard-working driven bloke (usually). If the business is lucky his son carries it on but rarely do they get past silver spoon generation three. We are constantly told by our right wing politicians and media that we all need to work harder for the sake of the economy. That surely applies to all? If spoilt kids are incapable of pulling their weight in the economic war for survival then the state should take their wealth away to make them earn their way through work in the same way it expects the impoverished to work hard.
Joined: Aug 14 2005 Posts: 14302 Location: On the Death Star Awaiting Luke.
The Video Ref wrote:One could go further. I wonder how many people, in general, who opine on tax policy, actually make any net income tax contribution to UK PLC?
There is an article in the Sunday Times today. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been doing some number crunching. I believe this to be a politically independent body, so no-one can claim it to be a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party.
The top 1% pay 25% of all tax in the UK. (From reading previous articles, I seem to recall that the top 5% pay 50% of all tax.)
If you take into account tax credits, but NOT housing benefit, a family with one earner and 2 children have to earn £22,000 before they make any net contribution to the UK's exchequer. If both parents earn, that figure becomes £25,000. To put this in perspective: the median UK salary is £26,000.
I am not an analyst or economist, but these figures suggest that a significant proportion of the UK's workforce make no net contribution through their income tax to the cost of running the country.
The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are financially supported by those in the higher and top tax brackets.
So 'tax the rich' is the order of the day. Because no other bugger seems to be making any net contribution. The worrying thing is that the 'rich' are not really 'rich'. An army sergeant, or a copper with a decent amount of overtime, would fall into the higher bracket.
Psst you seem to have forgotten about VAT, Fuel duty,Tax on utilities etc.
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Dally wrote:I have no problem with people doing what they want. What I object to is the economic stagnation that results from inherited wealth. The classic family business is started by a hard-working driven bloke (usually). If the business is lucky his son carries it on but rarely do they get past silver spoon generation three. We are constantly told by our right wing politicians and media that we all need to work harder for the sake of the economy. That surely applies to all? If spoilt kids are incapable of pulling their weight in the economic war for survival then the state should take their wealth away to make them earn their way through work in the same way it expects the impoverished to work hard.
You're forming an opinion based on heresay and...well, little else.
You're assuming all wealthy kids do naff all with their lives, when in my experience the opposite is true. Thanks to an accident of my location as a kid I know a lot of wealthy families and the majority of their kids have taken advantage of their, well, advantage, and have gone through the education system to its max, and are now occupying excellent jobs. Yes, many went the other way - many are in dead end jobs, some are in prison, some have realised the error of their ways and are now working to better themselves, but isn't that true of any sector of society?
And besides, I work to put food on the table and to provide a few luxuries. If a mysterious Aunt suddenly dumped several millions in my account, I'd jack in my job before you could say "Lee Briers lives in a caravan" and take as much time off as I wanted. Then I would use my wealth to fund an occupation I enjoyed. Perhaps I'd open a chain of restaurants. Or a couple of nice cosmopolitan bars to my tastes. Perhaps I'd try and dispose of my fortune and buy Salford. Whatever.
Most of us work because we have to. If we had the means not to, I'm sure many of us would ease off on the work front, or quit completely. And let's not tell idealistic porkies and pretend we wouldn't.
Joined: Aug 14 2005 Posts: 14302 Location: On the Death Star Awaiting Luke.
Cronus wrote:You're forming an opinion based on heresay and...well, little else.
You're assuming all wealthy kids do naff all with their lives, when in my experience the opposite is true. Thanks to an accident of my location as a kid I know a lot of wealthy families and the majority of their kids have taken advantage of their, well, advantage, and have gone through the education system to its max, and are now occupying excellent jobs. Yes, many went the other way - many are in dead end jobs, some are in prison, some have realised the error of their ways and are now working to better themselves, but isn't that true of any sector of society?
And besides, I work to put food on the table and to provide a few luxuries. If a mysterious Aunt suddenly dumped several millions in my account, I'd jack in my job before you could say "Lee Briers lives in a caravan" and take as much time off as I wanted. Then I would use my wealth to fund an occupation I enjoyed. Perhaps I'd open a chain of restaurants. Or a couple of nice cosmopolitan bars to my tastes. Perhaps I'd try and dispose of my fortune and buy Salford. Whatever.
Most of us work because we have to. If we had the means not to, I'm sure many of us would ease off on the work front, or quit completely. And let's not tell idealistic porkies and pretend we wouldn't.
Agreed and if you didn't work you would be burning through the cash you were sat on. So the monies would be entering the economy/Tax pile through purchases and VAT, Fuel duty etc anyway. Some seem to think that it is magic money that doesn't get spent if you don't work.
Cronus wrote:Who begrudges people working hard to earn a lot of money? I don't. Good luck to 'em.
But it's their money, it gets taxed, and it's theirs to do what they like with. If some kids end up inheriting millions what's the problem? It's not like they'll be a drain on resources, is it? If they choose to sit in a big house and party for the next 60 years, who cares? Meanwhile, many of the wealthy will actually go on to create or sustain businesses and jobs.
If it's the last will & testament of the deceased to pass on their wealth - money they have earned and paid tax on - why is it anyone else's business? Smells fishily of jealousy.
Little to do with jealousy and everything to do with one of my main mantras in life - if you've earnt it you should as far as possible be allowed to keep it (and conversely if you haven't earnt it you better have a very good reason why you should have it).
Newham Dockers, London Entry League Champions 2013
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Anakin Skywalker wrote:Agreed and if you didn't work you would be burning through the cash you were sat on. So the monies would be entering the economy/Tax pile through purchases and VAT, Fuel duty etc anyway. Some seem to think that it is magic money that doesn't get spent if you don't work.
I suspect what he's thinking of is the story from July about £13 trillion salted away in tax havens by the über rich global elite. Money taken out of the general economy – and economically inactive right now.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Cronus wrote:You're forming an opinion based on heresay and...well, little else.
You're assuming all wealthy kids do naff all with their lives, when in my experience the opposite is true. Thanks to an accident of my location as a kid I know a lot of wealthy families and the majority of their kids have taken advantage of their, well, advantage, and have gone through the education system to its max, and are now occupying excellent jobs. Yes, many went the other way - many are in dead end jobs, some are in prison, some have realised the error of their ways and are now working to better themselves, but isn't that true of any sector of society?
And besides, I work to put food on the table and to provide a few luxuries. If a mysterious Aunt suddenly dumped several millions in my account, I'd jack in my job before you could say "Lee Briers lives in a caravan" and take as much time off as I wanted. Then I would use my wealth to fund an occupation I enjoyed. Perhaps I'd open a chain of restaurants. Or a couple of nice cosmopolitan bars to my tastes. Perhaps I'd try and dispose of my fortune and buy Salford. Whatever.
Most of us work because we have to. If we had the means not to, I'm sure many of us would ease off on the work front, or quit completely. And let's not tell idealistic porkies and pretend we wouldn't.
It's not about jealousy it is about merit and reward. We are indoctrinated with the idea you get out what you put in. This was manifested in the "American Dream" where people could work hard and improve their lot. The American Dream is no longer because those who have made it have detroyed the dynamism (like they did long ago here) by taking all the good positions, ensuring access to the best facilities, etc by pricing the poorer out.
I would much rather live in a society where every generation has to live the dream for themselves, where they can improve their lot, give their kids a good upbringing, amass a fortune if they wish but then leave it all to philanthropic causes (voluntarily but by tax if necessary). Imagine what a great and vibrant society we'sd have them. Constant striving. Well endowed hospitals, universities, arts, etc - and all without recourse to the public purse. Taxation could be extremely low too.
The problem is the rich and powerful create the rules to suit themselves and their selfishness. Also why should anyone own land? Land is a nautral resource. Everyone should only be able to lease from the nation. Leases should be capped at, say, 80 years (equivalent to a good adult life-span). That would ensure that property acquisition does not hamper real economic activity, allow for freer movement of labour, etc.
Let's have rampant, beneficial capitalism rather than current nonsense. The logic of the current system is that one family will eventually own everything and the rest just given enough to survive (maybe). A return to feudalism in effect.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 103 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum