Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nah, he didn't. He received it due to existing legal and social structures. Naturally, these structures cannot in themselves be an argument against changing said structures, or indeed one in favour of changing them.
    You are the definition of socialist indoctrination.

    My question is: would he receive it without his own dedication, sacrifice, and hard work? Of course not. The ‘legal and social structures’ are the same for everyone, yet some individuals can achieve more regardless of whether they are given a head start or not. This blend of their own effort coupled with opportunity and chance makes them earn and deserve the property they possess.

    The ones you're thinking of must be your mates on the dole. They're the ones who just ‘receive’.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You are the definition of socialist indoctrination.

    My question is: would he receive it without his own dedication, sacrifice, and hard work? Of course not. The ‘legal and social structures’ are the same for everyone, yet some individuals can achieve more regardless of whether they are given a head start or not. This blend of their own effort coupled with opportunity and chance makes them earn and deserve the property they possess.

    The ones you're thinking of must be your mates on the dole. They're the ones who just ‘receive’.
    You're using notions which don't exist. Nobody deserves anything. What is the good reason for linking economic outcomes to the results of labour which are primarily chance-based?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You're using notions which don't exist. Nobody deserves anything. What is the good reason for linking economic outcomes to the results of labour which are primarily chance-based?
    Haha, citation needed…

    Every person has a choice. He can either work or just sit around, complain, and wait for others to support him because they unfortunately can't resist letting natural selection make him perish. Now, if he chooses to work and earns money, the money is deserved since he has shown qualities worthy of a reward, whereas if he just sits around, he does not deserve to be supported.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Haha, citation needed…

    Every person has a choice. He can either work or just sit around, complain, and wait for others to support him because they unfortunately can't resist letting natural selection make him perish. Now, if he chooses to work and earns money, the money is deserved since he has shown qualities worthy of a reward, whereas if he just sits around, he does not deserve to be supported.
    What makes those qualities worthy of reward?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What makes those qualities worthy of reward?
    The ability to generate value.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The ability to generate value.
    First, how do you define 'value'? What makes something valuable? Why?

    Second, what about the case of the person who inherits a couple of billion, spends 40k/year for life but the capital increases because of interest, then just seeks to pass it on without creating any value in any possible sense? Hell, what about investors in areas which are only profitable because the moral hazard lies elsewhere?

    Someone having money clearly doesn't indicate they've created value.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What's with the name? It makes this bill harder to agree with. Firstly, "bill should never say in the main text why you are doing something." Quoting from the bill writing guideline. If you could tone down the bias, and fix that, I would be much happier with the bill.

    Secondly, you have not linked the bills you're repealing, which I know would've been pointed out by some of our right wing colleagues on a Labour bill. During my research, I found out that the Estate Duty was implemented by the Finance Act of 1894, not 1984. Then was abolished by the Finance Act of 1975. Which was replaced with CTT, then Inheritance Tax in 1984. Please get some of your facts right.

    http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/...ht-man-s2.html
    http://www.archive.org/stream/financ...tuoft_djvu.txt

    Thirdly, I'm not sure about 2(2), from my understanding of the Capital Gains Tax, it is only imposed when, receiver of land, or property sells it or 'disposes' of it, so I don't understand where the revenue generated from use of such land or property is CGT. Please explain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    First, how do you define 'value'? What makes something valuable? Why?

    Second, what about the case of the person who inherits a couple of billion, spends 40k/year for life but the capital increases because of interest, then just seeks to pass it on without creating any value in any possible sense? Hell, what about investors in areas which are only profitable because the moral hazard lies elsewhere?

    Someone having money clearly doesn't indicate they've created value.
    Very easily!

    “The importance, worth, or usefulness of something.”

    It is clear that water has great value since it is needed to sustain life. Houses have great value since they provide protection. The chief executive generates value by leading the company in a way that allows it to produce profit which is then distributed between himself and other employees, allowing them to purchase water and have a place to live, for example. Someone else in his job could ruin it and eventually sack the employees to save the company.

    Are you ****ing kidding me? There is contribution through taxes ranging from VAT to property throughout his life, then contribution through the investments that essentially allow other people to produce greater value for the system as well as for themselves, etc. It is also a highly improbable case whereas I'm talking about the unfair impact on the (upper-)middle class which is generating value directly.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Very easily!

    “The importance, worth, or usefulness of something.”

    It is clear that water has great value since it is needed to sustain life. Houses have great value since they provide protection. The chief executive generates value by leading the company in a way that allows it to produce profit which is then distributed between himself and other employees, allowing them to purchase water and have a place to live, for example. Someone else in his job could ruin it and eventually sack the employees to save the company.
    Why is life valuable? What is important? What is worth something (fwiw this part is tautological since for something to be worth something, it has to be valuable in that way)? What is anything useful for, without first defining what outcomes are valuable? You're just assuming your conclusions here.

    Are you ****ing kidding me? There is contribution through taxes ranging from VAT to property throughout his life, then contribution through the investments that essentially allow other people to produce greater value for the system as well as for themselves, etc. It is also a highly improbable case whereas I'm talking about the unfair impact on the (upper-)middle class which is generating value directly.
    Again, assuming your conclusions. For this argument to hold, the person has to have a right to the property being taxed in the first place - something you haven't justified. By one person holding property, they are excluding that property from the use of everyone else. I don't see how that is contributing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by McRite)
    Thirdly, I'm not sure about 2(2), from my understanding of the Capital Gains Tax, it is only imposed when, receiver of land, or property sells it or 'disposes' of it, so I don't understand where the revenue generated from use of such land or property is CGT. Please explain.
    There are a few factual errors that will be corrected but the content will be the same, at the moment if an individual inheriting land tries to sell the land, CGT would be sold on the proceeds from the land, and if the individual decides to not sell the land but build property on the land which is sold, CGT would have to be paid on the proceeds from the property sold: this bill introduces an exemption in those two cases if less than 18 months have passed since the deceased died.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There are a few factual errors that will be corrected but the content will be the same, at the moment if an individual inheriting land tries to sell the land, CGT would be sold on the proceeds from the land, and if the individual decides to not sell the land but build property on the land which is sold, CGT would have to be paid on the proceeds from the property sold: this bill introduces an exemption in those two cases if less than 18 months have passed since the deceased died.
    Ah I see. Thanks for the explanation. Leaning towards an aye.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Why is life valuable? What is important? What is worth something (fwiw this part is tautological since for something to be worth something, it has to be valuable in that way)? What is anything useful for, without first defining what outcomes are valuable? You're just assuming your conclusions here.
    Instead of resorting to philosophical mumbo-jumbo written by people with too much time on their hands, you should for example consider the practical implications of ending life. Value is defined through our (sub)conscious experience of the environment around us—our self-preservation is encoded in the genes and executed on the sub-conscious level. It's no matter of subjectivity that needs to be defined by people.

    Again, assuming your conclusions. For this argument to hold, the person has to have a right to the property being taxed in the first place - something you haven't justified. By one person holding property, they are excluding that property from the use of everyone else. I don't see how that is contributing.
    I frankly don't understand what you're on about. Why is it so hard to grasp that without the bright minority, most people would live in far worse conditions or die, and that this alone is a sufficient contribution?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Okay… So considering that almost two million people in the UK live with sight loss but you can see, it gives you an ‘unfair advantage’ over them and you should poke your eyes out.

    Also, you happen to reside in the UK which is the result of the same kind of lottery as being born into a wealthy family—in fact, you're probably quite wealthy compared to some Somalians so for the sake of ‘fairness’ we should ship you off to Somalia and bring one of them over here instead.

    Where the **** are you getting these ridiculous beliefs? :confused:
    Of course. But the difference is that there is nothing we can (feasibly) do about either of those scenarios (and besides, the first is inapplicable to me as I'm visually impaired but hey, you didn't know that) whereas there is something we can feasibly do about this. Besides, it's not just a question of fairness, it's a question of productivity - if a worker knows that they stand to inherit a relatively large sum of money, they are going to have less incentive to work hard and get on, and potentially less incentive to do something like go and start a business. That isn't a good thing.

    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    And why the hell should the wealthy person be punished for that...

    That's like wanting to commit suicide and blowing up a shopping centre to do that. Just because you don't have what you want, doesn't mean you should take everyone else down with you.
    It's not a case of them being punished for being born to parents with money, it's a case of preventing everyone else from being punished for not being born to parents with money.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Of course. But the difference is that there is nothing we can (feasibly) do about either of those scenarios (and besides, the first is inapplicable to me as I'm visually impaired but hey, you didn't know that) whereas there is something we can feasibly do about this. Besides, it's not just a question of fairness, it's a question of productivity - if a worker knows that they stand to inherit a relatively large sum of money, they are going to have less incentive to work hard and get on, and potentially less incentive to do something like go and start a business. That isn't a good thing.


    It's not a case of them being punished for being born to parents with money, it's a case of preventing everyone else from being punished for not being born to parents with money.
    What the hell... they're not being punished, they're just not getting something straight away...

    Why don't we create a nice safe space for all these people as well, because apparently they can't cope with being born with less than someone else. If they can't deal with that, then how the hell they'll grow up and survive in this world is beyond me.

    [REDACTED]
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    What the hell... they're not being punished, they're just not getting something straight away...

    Why don't we create a nice safe space for all these people as well, because apparently they can't cope with being born with less than someone else. If they can't deal with that, then how the hell they'll grow up and survive in this world is beyond me.

    I think that perhaps the authors of this Bill are feeling incredibly sour and probably even salty about their personal circumstances.
    'You were born into this family, so you have to work much harder and longer than this person who was born into this other family to obtain the same standard of living.' Sounds a lot like punishment to me.

    Have you even read the bill?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    'You were born into this family, so you have to work much harder and longer than this person who was born into this other family to obtain the same standard of living.' Sounds a lot like punishment to me.

    Have you even read the bill?
    So it's the attitude of a spoilt little brat: "If I can't have it, no one can."

    Yes. I guess you could say because I was born into a family with a little bit of money, I was able to go to private school, get a good education, and learn to read. ****, maybe you should remove my private education, and ability to read because it's punishing those who haven't been able to have that.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    So it's the attitude of a spoilt little brat: "If I can't have it, no one can."

    Yes. I guess you could say because I was born into a family with a little bit of money, I was able to go to private school, get a good education, and learn to read. ****, maybe you should remove my private education, and ability to read because it's punishing those who haven't been able to have that.
    No, it's the attitude of 'If I have to work this hard to get this, then everyone should.' I can't see what's wrong with that attitude, myself.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    No, it's the attitude of 'If I have to work this hard to get this, then everyone should.' I can't see what's wrong with that attitude, myself.
    And I can't see what's wrong with "My parents (or where it's come from) have worked this hard, they've died, and so now I get it."

    (In reference to a couple of posts above, I think I was confusing this Bill with something totally different :rofl: I'll take that comment back!)
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain for the moment. Need to read all the comments, leaning to Aye though.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    And I can't see what's wrong with "My parents (or where it's come from) have worked this hard, they've died, and so now I get it."

    (In reference to a couple of posts above, I think I was confusing this Bill with something totally different :rofl: I'll take that comment back!)
    See, this is the issue with right wing rhetoric.
    "you should work hard and get a good job if you want money"
    "I have wealth inherited from generations ago, I didn't work hard for it but that's okay because people did the work for me"

    inheritance should be limited to strictly items with sentimental value and have an embargo from sale for at least 5 years.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 19, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.