Conservatives

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Tax should only be used to raise money for govt expenditure. It shouldn't be used to make people poorer.

How would that work then - given tax is a deduction?

[Webbo]

How would that work then - given tax is a deduction?

The  purpose should be for expenditure. You shouldn't take money off people just to make them poorer. I don't think it's hard to understand

[Bryn]

Quite right. The perception is that this government prefers to limit taxation on the wealthy, whilst cutting support for our poorest, with unclear evidence that this stimulates the economy in the intended manner though.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The  purpose should be for expenditure. You shouldn't take money off people just to make them poorer. I don't think it's hard to understand

It's not hard to understand - but it's such a lose, unquantified point, it adds nothing to the debate - it's just a bland simplistic platitude. Any tax taken from anyone makes them poorer - and whilst we're not running at a surplus, all tax received is used for expenditure. So what do you actually mean?

Now I'd assume what you're saying is that those with more assets shouldn't face a higher tax rate? That the aim to redistribute wealth across a broader range of the economy and society is not the right thing to do?

You'd prefer a flat rate tax for all, no top rate increase, so those at the bottom end end up paying even more as a percentage of their income in tax to those at the top? (I also find it amusing that you use the term 'poorer' given the target audience for your opinion seems to be the higher earners).

If so, that's fine, it's your own view - I find it a misguided and potentially selfish view, but that's the problem with trying to tackle wide ranging issues in a black/white manor because it can mean opinions unravel and point to some undesired realities when you examine what they would actually entail.

[MC Prussian]

Tax should only be used to raise money for govt expenditure. It shouldn't be used to make people poorer.

 

I think you're contradicting yourself there. Any tax will "make people poorer". You do understand the concept of taxation, I'm sure of it.

Which makes your post both baffling and useless to the debate per se.

[Webbo]

It's not hard to understand - but it's such a lose, unquantified point, it adds nothing to the debate - it's just a bland simplistic platitude. Any tax taken from anyone makes them poorer - and whilst we're not running at a surplus, all tax received is used for expenditure. So what do you actually mean?

Now I'd assume what you're saying is that those with more assets shouldn't face a higher tax rate? That the aim to redistribute wealth across a broader range of the economy and society is not the right thing to do?

You'd prefer a flat rate tax for all, no top rate increase, so those at the bottom end end up paying even more as a percentage of their income in tax to those at the top? (I also find it amusing that you use the term 'poorer' given the target audience for your opinion seems to be the higher earners).

If so, that's fine, it's your own view - I find it a misguided and potentially selfish view, but that's the problem with trying to tackle wide ranging issues in a black/white manor because it can mean opinions unravel and point to some undesired realities when you examine what they would actually entail.

No I'm saying the purpose of tax is to raise revenue, not just to make people poorer. Nothing to do with flat tax, people with who earn more can contribute more, fair enough. Tax shouldn't be used to level down incomes.

 

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

I think you're contradicting yourself there. Any tax will "make people poorer". You do understand the concept of taxation, I'm sure of it.

Which makes your post both baffling and useless to the debate per se.

Thanks for explaining that, I thought tax meant that the govt gave people money. Ffs.

[MC Prussian]

 

 

No I'm saying the purpose of tax is to raise revenue, not just to make people poorer

 

 

 

Tax should only be used to raise money for govt expenditure. It shouldn't be used to make people poorer.

Could you please make your mind up?

[Webbo]

Could you please make your mind up?

They're are virtually identical statements?

 

Let me explain this again. It's not the govt's job to decide how much money someone should have. They shouldn't decide that "you've got too much money so we're going to take a lot of it off you". Tax should be raised to cover expenditure, not social engineering. Is that clear?

[MC Prussian]

They're are virtually identical statements?

 

Let me explain this again. It's not the govt's job to decide how much money someone should have. They shouldn't decide that "you've got too much money so we're going to take a lot of it off you". Tax should be raised to cover expenditure, not social engineering. Is that clear?

 

The inherent concept of tax is to take money off every citizen! Be it income tax or inheritance tax.

And like I've already mentioned, inheritance tax doesn't need to "hurt", unless you're so precious about losing, let's say, three to five percent of money that you haven't earned yourself.

Interest will surely and quickly cover for the dramatic "loss" in no time.

 

I don't see what it's got to do with Social Engineering, unless you have a deep underlying antipathy towards government or invasion of privacy, which would render your case a bit clearer.

[Webbo]

The inherent concept of tax is to take money off every citizen! 

No shit?

[MC Prussian]

No shit?

 

No shit!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Tax shouldn't be used to level down incomes.

 

Ok then, you need to explain where this happens, because I don't see any tax that has been specifically put in place to level down incomes.

The tax bandings that have been established are based on the concept that those that earn more, can afford to pay a little more tax in percentage terms and still live well. The primary purpose of this is to raise revenues, not level down incomes - if the later was intended, the government would impose a much harsher top rate tax %.

[Strokes]

Funny how I understood what webbo meant at the first time of asking, clearly there is quite a lot of people that believe anyone with more money than them is undeserving of it. It all seems very spiteful to me.

[MC Prussian]

Funny how I understood what webbo meant at the first time of asking, clearly there is quite a lot of people that believe anyone with more money than them is undeserving of it. It all seems very spiteful to me.

 

I think that's beside the point.

Personally, I have nothing against people that have a higher income than me based on their education, expertise and experience. I consider that only fair and I don't see why anyone would want to challenge that system.

 

If the money was earned in earnest and by the working person himself, again no issue here.

Inheritance, however, is nothing but passing on already existing wealth that keeps on growing exponentionally (thanks to interest and dividends), unless it is coupled to investment which benefits the economy (and/or society).

[leicsmac]

Funny how I understood what webbo meant at the first time of asking, clearly there is quite a lot of people that believe anyone with more money than them is undeserving of it. It all seems very spiteful to me.

 

The 'politics of envy' charge being used to stifle legitimate debate is rather spiteful too.

[Webbo]

The 'politics of envy' charge being used to stifle legitimate debate is rather spiteful too.

Who's stifling debate?  You're allowed to disagree, pretending not to understand a quite obvious point  stops debate.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Funny how I understood what webbo meant at the first time of asking, clearly there is quite a lot of people that believe anyone with more money than them is undeserving of it. It all seems very spiteful to me.

Not at all, but I do feel mindsets have moved far too much to negative self interest "wifm" rather than the positive of shared interest, providing for the greater good.

I should also say, I'd advocate raising the top rate of tax earnings banding and lower the percentage taken, because I think the middles been squeezed / dis-incentivised and I'm not convinced a higher % income tax results in an increased overall tax take anyway.

But I will challenge opinions, especially where I see them to be unclear or unconsidered. I'm still not clear on how the original point applies based on current taxation policy or what the remedy would be - so if you feel you can explain please do.

[Strokes]

The 'politics of envy' charge being used to stifle legitimate debate is rather spiteful too.

If that's the best answer you can come up with, then I guess the charge will stick.

Do you believe wealth should be limited, if so what limit? You have mentioned wealth redistribution before so how much is too rich and how much is too poor, who gets what?

I work and strive hard in the belief that I can provide for my children now and in the future, I'm taxed fairly on that, why should that money be taxed again if I pass it on?

(I don't have enough for it to be subject to tax yet but I would love it to be above that current threshold).

[MC Prussian]

If that's the best answer you can come up with, then I guess the charge will stick.

Do you believe wealth should be limited, if so what limit? You have mentioned wealth redistribution before so how much is too rich and how much is too poor, who gets what?

I work and strive hard in the belief that I can provide for my children now and in the future, I'm taxed fairly on that, why should that money be taxed again if I pass it on?

(I don't have enough for it to be subject to tax yet but I would love it to be above that current threshold).

 

Two points:

An inheritance tax would affect only a small portion of an existing inheritance. If done correctly, larger inheritances would be charged a higher rate. I do believe the threshold and the tax coming into effect would be somewhere around the one million mark, give or take. But I'm not the one to make that decision. The critical limit could be higher or lower, for all I know.

 

Like you mention yourself, this tax doesn't apply to you (at all), given your current situation. I sense there's a certain amount of irrational fear (of the government taking away your hard-earned money from you) coming into play.

Keep in mind that only a small percentage of the population is very well off (and highly likely to be subject to this tax), why bother from your perspective? It's highly unlikely you'd ever be affected by its implementation. Many people strive for accumulation of wealth, but the reality is that only a few gain entry to that exclusive club by sheer hard work.

 

I can't see people saying wealth should be "limited". Not at all. With an inheritance tax, the rich would still get richer, albeit at a probably (slightly) slower rate. With the amount of money involved (we're talking millionaires or billionaires here), they'd hardly notice the difference of a tax deduction in the lower single-digit range.

[Strokes]

If you are unlikely for it to affect you why should you care? Does the same theory apply to the poor on benefits?

I believe it's unjust whether I'm in that position or not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it but I can certainly see why people would hide their money offshore with all you thieves around sucking them dry.

[MC Prussian]

If you are unlikely for it to affect you why should you care? Does the same theory apply to the poor on benefits?

I believe it's unjust whether I'm in that position or not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it but I can certainly see why people would hide their money offshore with all you thieves around sucking them dry.

 

How can you steal something that you've never earned?

And how can you speak for the small minority of people affected by such tax?

 

Besides, how would a single-digit percentage of inheritance tax be classified as "sucking people dry"?

[Strokes]

How can you steal something that you've never earned?

And how can you speak for the small minority of people affected by such tax?

 

Besides, how would a single-digit percentage of inheritance tax be classified as "sucking people dry"?

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to debate with you Prussian, I'll happily talk to Leicmac or DJ Barry Hammond who I don't agree with but I understand.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I work and strive hard in the belief that I can provide for my children now and in the future, I'm taxed fairly on that, why should that money be taxed again if I pass it on?

So if you look at this in a socialists mindset, the tax paid in the form of inheritance tax indirectly benefits your children - it allows the government to provide services that your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will use.

Now there might be an argument to say the limit could be lifted a bit more - with a few years of being static and house prices rising the limit possibly captures more modest estates, but at least the inclusion of the first owned property going forward should temper that issue.

I'm not against people passing things onto their children, that's a natural facet of life, however I do believe that simply storing up massive sums of wealth and passing it on at death is no good for anyone - not your descendants, the economy or the state.

And so this brings me on to an often unseen benefit of IHT and that is due to its existence, it forces people to think about their wealth and plan for their death, something that I imagine many wouldn't do to the same degree if IHT didn't exist.

Naturally if you plan, you may not need to pay any tax on whatever you pass on, or you can at least minimise what is paid - and as anyone who's acted as an executor on an estate will know, the more pre-planning that has been put into an estate, the easier it is to unwind everything and distribute.

Some useful reading regarding new limits / rules below...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/inheritance-tax-planning-iht

[Dodgy Bob]

Two points:

An inheritance tax would affect only a small portion of an existing inheritance. If done correctly, larger inheritances would be charged a higher rate. I do believe the threshold and the tax coming into effect would be somewhere around the one million mark, give or take. But I'm not the one to make that decision. The critical limit could be higher or lower, for all I know.

Like you mention yourself, this tax doesn't apply to you (at all), given your current situation. I sense there's a certain amount of irrational fear (of the government taking away your hard-earned money from you) coming into play.

Keep in mind that only a small percentage of the population is very well off (and highly likely to be subject to this tax), why bother from your perspective? It's highly unlikely you'd ever be affected by its implementation. Many people strive for accumulation of wealth, but the reality is that only a few gain entry to that exclusive club by sheer hard work.

I can't see people saying wealth should be "limited". Not at all. With an inheritance tax, the rich would still get richer, albeit at a probably (slightly) slower rate. With the amount of money involved (we're talking millionaires or billionaires here), they'd hardly notice the difference of a tax deduction in the lower single-digit range.

Apologies if I'm incorrect, but your posts make it seem like you don't realise we do already have inheritance tax in the UK, at a rate of 40% on anything above £325k.

That level seems low to me, although I gather there are exemptions for property and married couples can combine their allowances. Also, only about 3% of deaths ultimately lead to a payment of inheritance tax, and the take from it is quite low at around £4bn which is just a fraction of a percentage of the overall tax revenue, so I suspect it's quite easy to 'avoid'.

[Rincewind]

I am not against children being left money but there is also a POV that if it is done over generation to generation then those inheriting  may lose sight of the value of money and expect it and everything that goes with it as a right having already achieved a privileged position without putting in the hard work their forefathers did to build up their fortune  Those on low to mid or higher middle earners have to be vigilant and watch what they spend in hard times. Long term sickness, loss of job, income reduction etc.

I find and I expect others on here will  too, that something like a holiday, a meal out or even a City season ticket is more enjoyable as a treat than if it is something that is a matter of routine and happens every other day. So becomes boring.

Hope that sounds right. Example. When I was on JSA I allowed myself about 3 pints a week and appreciated them more. 

I do not believe a parent should give a child everything they ask for as there is a chance they will become spoilt and expect everything without giving anything in return.