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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    [snip]
    I'm not all that keen on the concept of fiat money at all. It brings economic matters into the political realm which shouldn't really have anything to do with it due to the short term nature of government policy. Plus it gives government the illusion of entitlement to another's wealth, which in my eyes is simply tyrannical.

    As far as land goes, in my opinion if you own the deeds for it then it's yours to do with what you like within whatever regulations apply to the plot. This includes the transfer of the deed itself to whomever you like.

    Who says that the deceased is necessarily going to leave it to a relative. I disagree with the whole concept of wealth automatically being left to the children, since that may have been against the wishes of the deceased. In fact, if no will is left then I'd be fine with all the money going to the government, it would certainly save a lot of admin costs.

    Ultimately I think this comes down to what we perceive the role of government to be. And I think our views differ greatly
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    wtf has this got to do with Labour?

    I thought the last two budgets were undertaken by a Conservative Chancellor.

    You need to lobby the Conservatives to end this tax. They have changed the parts of Labour's policy that they don't agree with and kept the policies they do agree with. This is obviously one that George Osborne supports, like he is keeping the top rate 50%. I like the fact he always tells everyone how he is uneasy about the top 50% tax, and not sure if it is actually bringing in more revenue, so he will 'look at it'. But I notice he doesn't scrap it!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fibrebiz)
    Therefore, in this country, the rich can never be taxed less than they already are - it's a political cyanide pill.
    Maggie cut the top rate of tax from 83%(which was just absurd, maybe even Teveth would admit it) to 40%. It didn't harm her much
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    wtf has this got to do with Labour?

    I thought the last two budgets were undertaken by a Conservative Chancellor.

    You need to lobby the Conservatives to end this tax. They have changed the parts of Labour's policy that they don't agree with and kept the policies they do agree with. This is obviously one that George Osborne supports, like he is keeping the top rate 50%. I like the fact he always tells everyone how he is uneasy about the top 50% tax, and not sure if it is actually bringing in more revenue, so he will 'look at it'. But I notice he doesn't scrap it!
    He has said that it is "temporary". My guess is that he will do a consultation and then cut it back to 40%. If he just cuts it then Red Ed will complain and whine that it wasn't consulted properly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    He has said that it is "temporary". My guess is that he will do a consultation and then cut it back to 40%. If he just cuts it then Red Ed will complain and whine that it wasn't consulted properly.
    This just smacks of weakness to me. Either a policy is right or it's wrong. If its wrong you scrap it. Osborne has never defended the 50p tax rate, he has always said he's not happy with it, and he's attacked Ed Balls about wanting to make it permanent. So this is obviously what he believes. But then just to keep it in the budget again is bizarre. He's the friggin Chancellor, its his budget, he's going to be judged on his own budget so at least be judged on being the man who cut the top rate rather than the man who criticised it and left it in. As for Ed Miliband complaining? SO?? He hasn't got a mandate for government.

    If this had been Nigel Lawson as Chancellor, he would either have said look, the 50p tax rate is right in these circumstances, so we're keeping it, or he would have said it's counterproductive, we're cutting it. He wouldn't have said one thing and then kept it in for fear of upsetting people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    This just smacks of weakness to me. Either a policy is right or it's wrong. If its wrong you scrap it. Osborne has never defended the 50p tax rate, he has always said he's not happy with it, and he's attacked Ed Balls about wanting to make it permanent. So this is obviously what he believes. But then just to keep it in the budget again is bizarre. He's the friggin Chancellor, its his budget, he's going to be judged on his own budget so at least be judged on being the man who cut the top rate rather than the man who criticised it and left it in. As for Ed Miliband complaining? SO?? He hasn't got a mandate for government.

    If this had been Nigel Lawson as Chancellor, he would either have said look, the 50p tax rate is right in these circumstances, so we're keeping it, or he would have said it's counterproductive, we're cutting it. He wouldn't have said one thing and then kept it in for fear of upsetting people.
    If he just cuts it, Ed Miliband says he's only helping the rich, and screwing over the poor. If he has a consultation about it, then he can cut it, and say the treasury said it was a good idea. He has a fall guy. It's a shrewd political move. However, he'll be in a pickle if the treasury says not to cut it, that could get interesting.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    If he just cuts it, Ed Miliband says he's only helping the rich, and screwing over the poor. If he has a consultation about it, then he can cut it, and say the treasury said it was a good idea. He has a fall guy. It's a shrewd political move. However, he'll be in a pickle if the treasury says not to cut it, that could get interesting.
    If he cuts it, high earners stay in the UK. If he doesn't cut it they leave. That should be more pressing in his mind than what Ed Miliband says. Miliband isn't like Nelson Mandela where his opinion influences the public. Most people probably see him on TV and think what a tool and turn it off.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    If he cuts it, high earners stay in the UK. If he doesn't cut it they leave. That should be more pressing in his mind than what Ed Miliband says. Miliband isn't like Nelson Mandela where his opinion influences the public. Most people probably see him on TV and think what a tool and turn it off.
    It's more complicated than that. Let the treasury do the research. Osborne's doing the right thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    It's more complicated than that. Let the treasury do the research. Osborne's doing the right thing.
    I agree, I was being slightly provocative by simplifying the usual argument put forwards by the Tories and right wingers.

    I remember for a while I was interested in the Laffer curve idea and the concept that low tax = higher tax takes. However the empirical evidence generally does not support that. Most of the countries who have good fiscal positions have either got large oil reserves to export, or have quite high tax rates.

    I have a feeling that whilst the Adam Smith institute will always produce research to say that low top tax rates mean higher revenues, when the Treasury does the research, they will say that the 50% is worth keeping. That will mean the argument for reducing it will be political not economic, and will be postponed to the day when we are in a good fiscal position. Which may be a long time ahead.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isaqyi)
    Is it fair that people's families must pay tax to receive the estate of someone who has died? No. Well, I suppose the socialists will think it is. Any chance they can get to get their hands on someone else's money they'll grab.

    But it's not moral, so end it now.

    END INHERITANCE TAX.
    How on Earth can it be moral to give a tax cut to the wealthy at the expense of everybody else?

    If the state decides that your estate will be taxed upon death, then that's how it's bloody well going to be. If you don't like it, then tough ****. Go and live somewhere else where an inheritance tax doesn't exist, somewhere like Somalia, and let's see how much money you can make.

    You make me sick.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    How on Earth can it be moral to give a tax cut to the wealthy at the expense of everybody else?

    If the state decides that your estate will be taxed upon death, then that's how it's bloody well going to be. If you don't like it, then tough ****. Go and live somewhere else where an inheritance tax doesn't exist, somewhere like Somalia, and let's see how much money you can make.

    You make me sick.
    You bloody Labourite. If you don't like what the state tells you, then **** off and live elsewhere? You typify everything about New Labour and its disgusting morals.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I'm not all that keen on the concept of fiat money at all. It brings economic matters into the political realm which shouldn't really have anything to do with it due to the short term nature of government policy. Plus it gives government the illusion of entitlement to another's wealth, which in my eyes is simply tyrannical.

    As far as land goes, in my opinion if you own the deeds for it then it's yours to do with what you like within whatever regulations apply to the plot. This includes the transfer of the deed itself to whomever you like.

    Who says that the deceased is necessarily going to leave it to a relative. I disagree with the whole concept of wealth automatically being left to the children, since that may have been against the wishes of the deceased. In fact, if no will is left then I'd be fine with all the money going to the government, it would certainly save a lot of admin costs.

    Ultimately I think this comes down to what we perceive the role of government to be. And I think our views differ greatly
    You don't agree with fiat money? What you rather do?
    I think you're not really seeing the big picture here, people are only wealthy because other people let them be. If today, all people with shares in say, Barclays decided to sell them, Barclays would no longer be able to pay the salaries of it's employees, and thus they would cease to be wealthy. This is the simplest way in which this happens, but we could go further, and say that as a group (i.e. the population) we could decide that actually, everyone who is wealthy should be deposited on an island with no resources. More complicated I know, but what I mean is, passive acceptance of the wealth of others helps people to become wealthy as well as direct funding does.

    In short, no-one in the history of the earth has become wealthy without the help of others, so to say that they do not owe something to the people that helped them I don't accept.

    Your last part I disagree with, if there is to be any form of inheritance, it should be forcibly made to go the kin of the deceased unless the kin are over the age of 21, and even then, only if it's expressly requested by someone. I'm still saying money and land should be taxed, but again, possessions I think should be taxed to a much lower extent within reason, but that's infeasible.

    (Original post by isaqyi)
    You bloody Labourite. If you don't like what the state tells you, then **** off and live elsewhere? You typify everything about New Labour and its disgusting morals.
    :lol: Preaching about morality whilst calling for an end to IHT?
    Does not compute.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    You do realise that analogy is a little off.
    It's more like my friend wanting to give me at least £325,000.

    Again, it's something that I can honestly see both arguments for, and I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see it in as either/or terms as perhaps you do.

    £325,000 is enough of a threshold to provide an excellent future for any dependent children one may have, or for anyone I should add. I don't think 40% above £325,000 is a lot to ask for really, I mean, on £1,000,000 you'd keep £730,000 which is still a lot, more than most people will ever see anyway. I don't think it's a legitimate gripe to have, although I understand it's the pure principle you don't agree with, which obviously, is perfectly understandable.

    EDIT: My apologies for twisting what you said, also.
    I think the main difference between us is that you probably know more about the way the Inheritance Tax works than I do

    And yeah, it's the principle I disagree with; someone works for most of their life and pays tax on their earnings, it's not fair for the earnings they wish to give to their family when they pass away to be taxed again. I just see it as greed, personally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I love the way the greedy toffs on here talk about IHT taxing earnings!
    No one saves that much money.
    Inheritance comes from properties that have inflated through pure luck over the decades or from lucky share dealings. Nothing to do with hard work whatsoever.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    How on Earth can it be moral to give a tax cut to the wealthy at the expense of everybody else?

    If the state decides that your estate will be taxed upon death, then that's how it's bloody well going to be. If you don't like it, then tough ****. Go and live somewhere else where an inheritance tax doesn't exist, somewhere like Somalia, and let's see how much money you can make.

    You make me sick.
    You do not need to go that far.

    Try the perceived "high tax" nation of Sweden. No inheritance tax and no annual wealth tax. Yes, local income tax and above certain thresholds national income tax, yes higher vat (MOMS) with a lower rate on food, yes it will very soon have a higher corporation tax rate than uk at 28% (with possibility of tax deferral for a year on 20% of profits) but tax on wealth and estates, no.

    This is a country with a standard of living, social care , education and childcare provision we would die for, yes they pay high taxes but they appear to get value for money.

    Take a guess which country I intend to emigrate to on retirement?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Haha what.

    YOU HAVE SPARE MONEY SO YOU CAN CUT TAXES, WHAT DO YOU CUT?

    1. Tax on unearned income
    2. Tax on earned income

    Pretty obvious which is fairer and leads to a less stodgy economy~
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Today's Times has Vince Cable saying he has finally got Cameron to agree to his "mansion tax" - an extra tax on high value properties on the death of the owner.
    Good on you Tories!
    LOL
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    Today's Times has Vince Cable saying he has finally got Cameron to agree to his "mansion tax" - an extra tax on high value properties on the death of the owner.
    Good on you Tories!
    LOL
    Typical paupers' hate.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'm really sorry that your relative has just died, but I regret to inform you that you owe us yet more money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isaqyi)
    Typical paupers' hate.
    Try getting your head round this.
    I support IHT
    I own 3 houses.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.