What has life taught you?

[Lamby]

I'm surprised I've not had a mention in this

[Guest MattP]

I'm surprised I've not had a mention in this

I'm sure a few in this thread are quite happy to work a few extra hours so you can go to 46 Charlton games a year.

Go for it, system is there to be abused.

[Lamby]

I'm sure a few in this thread are quite happy to work a few extra hours so you can go to 46 Charlton games a year.

Go for it, system is there to be abused.

 

I never get to that many games. I'm not going Watford next week

[Guest MattP]

I never get to that many games. I'm not going Watford next week

Sorry. Ill put a bit extra in my next tax return.

[Lamby]

Sorry. Ill put a bit extra in my next tax return.

 

It's only cos it's £26 a ticket and **** paying that for a shit ground. My next away game is on October 19th, and I don't have a S/T now either

[Guest MattP]

Bad times eh Lamby.

I know a local radio station that may be interested in your plight.

[Lamby]

But I'll get dogs abuse off Ken

[Rincewind]

government most definitely should not be regulating everday life, maybe I'm too optimistic but I believe people are perfectly capable of making their own choices in life

I don't have a go at the 'scroungers', their not the problem, their just doing what they need to to survive like the rest of us. the current welfare state creates more problems for people then it fixes and the 'underclass' as Ive seen moose call it is just a symptom. but too many people on high salaries in government depend on it so it isn't going to change   

 

good night all. now lets be good citizens and thank our father of the people for making the sun rise this morning   

I always thought 'Underclass' was only used in the Victorian era. Oh well we live and learn.

Goodnight from me

Why would I give you abuse Lamby There are many more on here better qualified in that area.There has also been good advice given if it is read between the lines.

 

And a goodnight from

[Guest Bilo]

Any thoughts on the sensible advice given to you on this thread Lamby?

[Lamby]

Any thoughts on the sensible advice given to you on this thread Lamby?

 

What advice? I've been drinking and cba to read it

[Rincewind]

If he lived in Leicester I'd try and get him to volunteer for AH because it's far better helping out at an hostel than living in one.

[Guest MattP]

Couldn't have been a more perfect response had it been Moosebreath taking the piss

[Harry - LCFC]

I reject the idea that you still own possessions when you die but I do accept that you should have control over where they go, much like you have control over how you spend the money you earn.

 

Those arguing against an inheritance tax are justifying it by saying the individual should have total control over his property i.e. it should be solely up to them to decide how they use their income/property and that an inheritance tax would infringe on this ability to make that decision. But that then that implies there should be no taxation at all as any tax can be regarded as an infringement upon the individual's ability to use the wealth they've accumulated.

 

Perhaps I've over complicated the discussion a bit but I can't help but notice those opposing this keep going back to the idea that the individual should have full control over his property, thus implying that any tax would be wrong and shouldn't be in place. Maybe you do want that, I don't know, any Ayn Rand fans on here?

 

So yeah to finish off, I don't think it's unfair to ask the rich to pay back proportionally more in order to benefit the rest of society. In the same way I don't think it's unfair to ask those inheriting to give back something they've not even earnt in the first place.

[separator]

I reject the idea that you still own possessions when you die but I do accept that you should have control over where they go, much like you have control over how you spend the money you earn.

 

Those arguing against an inheritance tax are justifying it by saying the individual should have total control over his property i.e. it should be solely up to them to decide how they use their income/property and that an inheritance tax would infringe on this ability to make that decision. But that then that implies there should be no taxation at all as any tax can be regarded as an infringement upon the individual's ability to use the wealth they've accumulated.

 

Perhaps I've over complicated the discussion a bit but I can't help but notice those opposing this keep going back to the idea that the individual should have full control over his property, thus implying that any tax would be wrong and shouldn't be in place. Maybe you do want that, I don't know, any Ayn Rand fans on here?

 

So yeah to finish off, I don't think it's unfair to ask the rich to pay back proportionally more in order to benefit the rest of society. In the same way I don't think it's unfair to ask those inheriting to give back something they've not even earnt in the first place.

Nobody is implying that you shouldn't pay tax when alive, just because you don't want to when you're dead.

[Harry - LCFC]

Nobody is implying that you shouldn't pay tax when alive, just because you don't want to when you're dead.

 

I know no-one's implied it deliberately but you can glean that idea from what's being said.

 

People keep saying that there shouldn't be an inheritance tax as the government shouldn't interfere with someone's ability to decide where their income/property goes. From that you can infer that any tax (income for example) is wrong as any tax would infringe on someone's ability to decide how they use their wealth.

 

I very much doubt that people actually oppose all taxes as I suggested, I'm just trying to show how the logic being used for the death tax might be applied to other taxes.

[Jon the Hat]

The difference being when you accumulate your wealth in the first place you pay tax on it. Inheritance tax is double taxation. The principle of it is wrong.

[Harry - LCFC]

This is where opinions differ I suppose.

 

I personally believe that property ceases to become yours when you die so you can't pay tax on it as you don't own it. Instead I agree with CPF when he says that the inheritor pays the tax on their new property. I suspect you don't agree with me there and think that the dead can still own property but there you go.

 

If the dead do own property then it's a ridiculous squandering of resources, if they didn't write a will it'd be wrong of us not to take their house off of them and let someone else own it.

[The People's Hero]

As has been pointed out, it's double taxation and is wrong in principle. I've not seen a single post deal with this issue or explain how this is fair or justifiable.

Let us not forget, the funds required to build up this inheritance, the income which built it up, has already been taxed!

[Captain...]

This is where opinions differ I suppose.

 

I personally believe that property ceases to become yours when you die so you can't pay tax on it as you don't own it. Instead I agree with CPF when he says that the inheritor pays the tax on their new property. I suspect you don't agree with me there and think that the dead can still own property but there you go.

 

If the dead do own property then it's a ridiculous squandering of resources, if they didn't write a will it'd be wrong of us not to take their house off of them and let someone else own it.

 

That is what happens, if there is no will and no heirs then the state takes control of the whole estate, unless the heir hunters get involved and try and track down some long lost obscure relative to get a cut of the estate when they give a small or large fortune to an individual who has no real connection to the deceased often in a foreign country, rather than let the state take control and put it towards bettering society.

[Captain...]

As has been pointed out, it's double taxation and is wrong in principle. I've not seen a single post deal with this issue or explain how this is fair or justifiable.

Let us not forget, the funds required to build up this inheritance, the income which built it up, has already been taxed!

 

If you're worried about the dead being taxed twice, don't, they are dead, they have no use for it, my body will be carved up for donors/science and the remains cremated, I will have no need for money. Any offspring will by this point hopefully be able to stand on their own 2 feet, and will be grateful for anything they get.

 

If you view it as the heir gets taxed on it, then it is just single taxation as happens on every thing.

[Captain...]

You see this is often the problem with "leftie" politics, "I;d be ok with so everyone else should be", it doesn't work like that.

 

Shortfall, anywhere you want but robbing the dead as far as I'm concerned.

 

We'll start with less MP's, cancel child benefit, no more foreign aid. I'm up for what every you want, hell I'll even agree to cancel Trident before you resort to theft.

 

Less MPs no problem with, I'd bite your hand off if you scrapped Trident and Inheritance tax.

 

But I would rather tax dead people/people inheriting over 350k than remove child benefit and stop foreign aid. 

 

I don't get your problem with lefty politics, surely that is even more true of the right, I don't need child benefits, so lets scrap it ignoring the thousands that depend on it. All opinions are like that, my parents estate will almost certainly incur inheritance tax as they have 2 properties, possibly 3 depending on what they do with my gran's house when she dies. I will have no problem with that and neither will they.

[leicsmac]

Not entirely sure where I stand on inheritance tax. On the one hand it does seem awfully like double taxation,but on the other surely if the Right believe so much in the idea of personal responsibility they shouldn't be pushing for their heirs to inherit anything at all as they should be able to stand on their own, right? 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Not entirely sure where I stand on inheritance tax. On the one hand it does seem awfully like double taxation,but on the other surely if the Right believe so much in the idea of personal responsibility they shouldn't be pushing for their heirs to inherit anything at all as they should be able to stand on their own, right?

You're right to an extent though if the money can't belong to the deceased child it sure as hell shouldn't belong to the government either

[leicsmac]

You're right to an extent though if the money can't belong to the deceased child it sure as hell shouldn't belong to the government either

 

Yeah, no disagreement there.

 

Personally after having thought about it I'm not really in favour of it (at the high rate it is anyway), but that won't stop me pointing out the hypocrisy of those who insist every man has to be an island then get bent out of shape when the Government takes a piece from money that is in fact going directly to other people in direct violation of the ideology they normally stick to. 

[Captain...]

You're right to an extent though if the money can't belong to the deceased child it sure as hell shouldn't belong to the government either

 

Why not? I would rather the government had it to do something that benefits society than some rich heir that will spend it on drugs and hookers. Look at the vacuous whore that is Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, or our own Tara Palmer Tomkinson. If they didn't think they would inherit the world they might actually have got a job and contributed rather than walk around with a sense of entitlement and being untouchable because they happen to have rich parents. The inheritance tax fuels that, I would genuinely see no problem with the government taxing much higher individuals who inherit obscene amounts.