Turn on thread page Beta

Third of voters believe Tories are party of 'upper classes' watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    If someones parents works extremely hard to provide their children with a house or other assets the Government has no right to tax it.
    The alternative is to taxing your free windfall is to tax what people actually earn. Tax money has to come from somewhere. Surely it is fairer to tax what people get for free before the money they earn?

    In your inheritance tax-free system, people would pay greater tax on the money that they earn, but nothing on the money they don't. In other words, people creating wealth get taxed, whilst people sitting on their arse and relying on their parents don't. I don't see how that can be fair.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The alternative is to taxing your free windfall is to tax what people actually earn. Tax money has to come from somewhere. Surely it is fairer to tax what people get for free before the money they earn?

    In your inheritance tax-free system, people would pay greater tax on the money that they earn, but nothing on the money they don't. In other words, people creating wealth get taxed, whilst people sitting on their arse and relying on their parents don't. I don't see how that can be fair.
    (Original post by Afrotortina)
    I think the point we're all trying to make is that we'd appreciate if we received ANY amount of money for inheritance. You don't. Like I said earlier, some people can't afford food and water to survive.
    I do appreciate it.
    I am merely raising the point that the Government should not be taxing inheritance. However, one day I would like to see it scrapped - as called for by Stephen Byers.

    It has been stated recently that the country is becoming more conservative, that the poor should do more for themselves. Those who live in poverty would of course receive government help (assuming they are British citizens).

    There are ways to fund this, such as a cut in general expenditure which is needed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I do appreciate it.
    I am merely raising the point that the Government should not be taxing inheritance. However, one day I would like to see it scrapped - as called for by Stephen Byers.

    It has been stated recently that the country is becoming more conservative, that the poor should do more for themselves. Those who live in poverty would of course receive government help (assuming they are British citizens).
    The Government have to gain tax from somewhere! I think it's better that it comes from inheritance (that you don't get too often, and tbh isn't essiential money) than an increase from your wages that they tax you every month.

    Lots of poor people do try the best for themselves.. sometimes theres not much opportunity...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The alternative is to taxing your free windfall is to tax what people actually earn. Tax money has to come from somewhere. Surely it is fairer to tax what people get for free before the money they earn?

    In your inheritance tax-free system, people would pay greater tax on the money that they earn, but nothing on the money they don't. In other words, people creating wealth get taxed, whilst people sitting on their arse and relying on their parents don't. I don't see how that can be fair.
    I completely agree with you! But you sound like you can write a better argument than me :p: Hear hear!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afrotortina)
    The Government have to gain tax from somewhere! I think it's better that it comes from inheritance (that you don't get too often, and tbh isn't essiential money) than an increase from your wages that they tax you every month.

    Lots of poor people do try the best for themselves.. sometimes theres not much opportunity...
    But why must the government collect tax on such a scale?
    It is my view, that we should be cutting public expenditure and providing everyone with tax cuts, coupled with a transferable tax allowance for couples. This should also be in conjunction with an increase in the tax allowance to around £10-15k.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    But why must the government collect tax on such a scale?
    It is my view, that we should be cutting public expenditure and providing everyone with tax cuts, coupled with a transferable tax allowance for couples. This should also be in conjunction with an increase in the tax allowance to around £10-15k.
    That is evading the point. Public spending cuts could equally go to cut income tax. This is about where you are going to get the money that does need to be collected; and I can't see how there is any fairer way of raising money than by taxing what people did not earn.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    That is evading the point. Public spending cuts could equally go to cut income tax. This is about where you are going to get the money that does need to be collected; and I can't see how there is any fairer way of raising money than by taxing what people did not earn.
    It is not evading his/her question. He/she asked where this money would come from, and I am suggesting that it comes from no where and go on to state that we should give more tax cuts if anything else.

    But why should the government tax a gift from ones parents at such a low level?
    This is why the Conservatives are right to increase the threshold to one million.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    It is not evading his/her question. He/she asked where this money would come from, and I am suggesting that it comes from no where and go on to state that we should give more tax cuts if anything else.

    But why should the government tax a gift from ones parents at such a low level?
    This is why the Conservatives are right to increase the threshold to one million.
    I'm female!!!! I have the female logo!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afrotortina)
    I'm female!!!! I have the female logo!
    That logo didn't load... The college internet is terrible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Weather you agree or disagree with inheritance tax, how can the Conservative justify their policy when they are also looking to make savage cuts to public services.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    But why should the government tax a gift from ones parents at such a low level?
    This is why the Conservatives are right to increase the threshold to one million.
    If its such a low level then why do only 5% of estates pay it...?
    Or is 5% 'high'?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    It is not evading his/her question. He/she asked where this money would come from, and I am suggesting that it comes from no where and go on to state that we should give more tax cuts if anything else.

    But why should the government tax a gift from ones parents at such a low level?
    This is why the Conservatives are right to increase the threshold to one million.
    To phrase this differently, think of it this way:
    Should they tax people for what they have earnt, with income tax, or what they haven't, with inheritance tax?

    The money has to come from somewhere, plain and simple. If it doesn't come from income or inheritance tax, it's either corporation tax (Conservatives won't raise it), environmental tax (I don't know their policy in this respect but I find it doubtful) or VAT, which is regressive and hurts the poorest most.

    How is inheritance tax by any stretch of the imagination the worst of those options?

    To be honest, regardless of all that, this is by all accounts a gimmick meant to endear them to middle england, to all those people who hope to have £650k estates, while not losing too much revenue, because most of them won't get those estates.
    That so much focus is going on this gimmick is actually mildly amusing, it's politics at its worst really...

    If Labour were being true to their roots they'd not only hold onto inheritance tax, but say
    "You know what, not only are we not going to raise the cutoff, we're going to raise the rate to 50%, and we're going to pour that money into inner city schools and careers advice for the disadvantaged, because we believe in equal opportunities, unlike the party opposite."
    I'm not saying it's a bad thing they aren't doing that...I don't love statism...but both sides are really only claiming to represent different things. They're grandstanding on small issues in order to avoid revealing the fact that in the end their policies are so similar by now you'd barely recognize them next to the parties of old.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    [B]
    Wow - Even with David Cameron as the leader, people still perceive the Conservative Party as the party for the rich.
    Even with an Eton educated trust-fund millionaire as leader? How odd!





    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Proof that two thirds of the country know nothing about politics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    To phrase this differently, think of it this way:
    Should they tax people for what they have earnt, with income tax, or what they haven't, with inheritance tax?
    Inheritance tax is a double tax.
    It means money that has been earned is tax, and then when assets or finance which is passed down is taxed again.
    That so much focus is going on this gimmick is actually mildly amusing, it's politics at its worst really...
    You have no evidence to support that.
    OMG the Conservatives lowering taxes is a gimmick...

    Don't the Conservatives always aim to lower taxes?

    Its a gimmick I tell you.

    "You know what, not only are we not going to raise the cutoff, we're going to raise the rate to 50%, and we're going to pour that money into inner city schools and careers advice for the disadvantaged, because we believe in equal opportunities, unlike the party opposite."
    That is even worse. The rate of 40% is bad enough.
    So you want Labour to play party politics and spin? I see.

    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    Even with an Eton educated trust-fund millionaire as leader? How odd!
    I have already explained this.
    Cameron is VERY moderate compared to other members of the Conservative Party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Inheritance tax is a double tax.
    It means money that has been earned is tax, and then when assets or finance which is passed down is taxed again.


    You have no evidence to support that.
    OMG the Conservatives lowering taxes is a gimmick...

    Don't the Conservatives always aim to lower taxes?

    Its a gimmick I tell you.



    That is even worse. The rate of 40% is bad enough.
    So you want Labour to play party politics and spin? I see.


    So, you still have done a lovely job of purposefully ignoring the actual question I asked so let me pose it again for you.
    Do you support lowering tax on unearned income, over lowering tax on earned income? It's a simple question.
    Try answering this time.

    And it is a gimmick as far as I am concerned. Simply because it affects less than 5% of estates, and is worth less than 4 billion of a 550 billion+ budget. That's less than one percent of the budget. Yet more voters care about it because they hope it will affect them. The Conservatives don't want to lose too much of their budget, but they do want to pull some middle income votes. So, rather than taking on income tax which actually might affect a large proportion of people, losing them budget and actually affecting middle-England, they take on inheritance tax which affects few but gets the votes of the hopeful as well. Seems simple enough to me to see that's a gimmick. Do you really, honestly believe it's not?

    Lovely to see your double standards on the 'party politics and spin' part. It was worth being momentarily reactionary and taking the side of Labour just to see you show yourself so obviously to have a total double standard.
    I said that Labour is no longer really a party of the people at all, and you'll happily admit thats true I'm sure. It's the party of the middle class, and the Conservatives are attempting to be the party of the middle class as well...just failing.

    The thing is, you ignore what I say and assume I'm just a supporter of old spin-Labour. I said, I would not support that, but it's what they'd do if they were still representing the people they claim to. Funny how you ignored that part.
    I was pointing out the fact that neither party is actually very different, they want to seem different without hurting their budgets, they're both full of gimmicks.

    If I can I'll probably be voting LPUK, thanks for asking.
    But feel free to get emotional and tell me I'm all for 'party politics and spin'. I am for party politics. I am for different parties. I am not for spin, and I am not for gimmicks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    Even with an Eton educated trust-fund millionaire as leader? How odd!





    I LOVE your images!! Especially the last one! :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    I said that Labour is no longer really a party of the people at all, and you'll happily admit thats true I'm sure. It's the party of the middle class, and the Conservatives are attempting to be the party of the middle class as well...just failing.
    Wait, party of the middle class?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't the 70's and 80's anymore. I'm from a working-class family, and I know the Conservatives can help my situation a lot more than Labour can. I hate Labour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philosopher-of-sorts)
    Do you support lowering tax on unearned income, over lowering tax on earned income? It's a simple question.
    In regards to tax my general view is this.
    All forms of tax should be as low as you can possibly make them.
    The thresholds for income and inheritance tax should be increased to £12k and £1mil respectively.

    And it is a gimmick as far as I am concerned. Simply because it affects less than 5% of estates, and is worth less than 4 billion of a 550 billion+ budget. That's less than one percent of the budget.
    5% of estates but many more in terms of overall inheritance I'm sure.

    Lovely to see your double standards on the 'party politics and spin' part.
    It was worth being momentarily reactionary and taking the side of Labour just to see you show yourself so obviously to have a total double standard.
    Care to elaborate?
    I said that Labour is no longer really a party of the people at all, and you'll happily admit thats true I'm sure. It's the party of the middle class, and the Conservatives are attempting to be the party of the middle class as well...just failing.
    and yet the Conservatives have traditionally gained the vote of the middle class...
    The thing is, you ignore what I say and assume I'm just a supporter of old spin-Labour.
    I didn't assume you were a supporter of Labour at all.


    If I can I'll probably be voting LPUK, thanks for asking.
    I did their little test and got:
    Well done!
    You scored 100%
    You are a liberal

    This is from the LPUK's party manifesto:
    Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax abolished in first Libertarian parliamentary term.

    I totally agree with them.


    (Original post by Giggsy's Girl)
    This isn't the 70's and 80's anymore. I'm from a working-class family, and I know the Conservatives can help my situation a lot more than Labour can. I hate Labour.
    Good girl
    I will give you rep later
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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