What has life taught you?

[Webbo]

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. 

That's not the ideaology though, the money is yours and if you want to leave it to your children you should be able to.

[MooseBreath]

Envy is a sin.

[The Year Of The Fox]

You're talking about people at the very high end of the financial bracket though. I'm talking about Joe Bloggs.

And as controversial as this will sound I'd rather someone be spending inheritance on drugs and women than it being held by the government where, lets face it, no matter how much they have in their entire kitty nothing ever comes back to benefit Joe Bloggs does it?

If you liked to smoke a bit of weed now and again or was partial to some Colombian marching powder on a Saturday night, the person you buy it off may use your cash to buy a car, do his bathroom up, do his garden up. All ways that money would change hands, improving the financial state of the country.

[Mike Oxlong]

You're taxed to death in life so it should be no surprise that your life is taxed in death.

 

Inheritance tax is just another form of multiple taxation.

 

Taxed when you earn, spend. save, put aside for old age, transfer. Next they'll tax you to break wind as it probably damages the ozone layer.

 

Approximately £3 billion p/a raised through inheritance tax which, if abolished, will be screwed out of you by some other means.

 

The good news is that lottery and betting wins remain tax free. Now there's an incentive to work hard!

[Jon the Hat]

You're talking about people at the very high end of the financial bracket though. I'm talking about Joe Bloggs.

 

We are not talking about people at the very high end though.  The tax thresholds have not kept up with the increase in house prices, so more and more people find themselves paying tax on fairly modest homes and some savings which their parents worked hard to buy.  This is unfair to people who live in the South East - you can inherit a huge house in the North and pay nothing, but this is not the case in the South East.

[Webbo]

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. 

You're assuming the government will spend it on something that will benefit society, experience suggests different. Those vacuous whores as you call them are wasting their money with businesses that need it, doing more good than a hundred pointless committees.

[Captain...]

We are not talking about people at the very high end though.  The tax thresholds have not kept up with the increase in house prices, so more and more people find themselves paying tax on fairly modest homes and some savings which their parents worked hard to buy.  This is unfair to people who live in the South East - you can inherit a huge house in the North and pay nothing, but this is not the case in the South East.

 

Now if your are talking about raising the inheritance tax bracket to be in line with house pricing, and even having regional weighting I can agree with you, the government doesn't which is surprising, but I can see there is no sense in taxing 2 people at the same rate when 350K could be 3 or 4 houses up north, I have friends who have recently bought houses for 80k and 100k in Sheffield. I would happily see the inheritance tax limit exclude the main property, but tax the crap out of second and third homes.

 

You're assuming the government will spend it on something that will benefit society, experience suggests different. Those vacuous whores as you call them are wasting their money with businesses that need it, doing more good than a hundred pointless committees.

 

Well this is the problem with electing muppets like Cameron and Osbourne, I do wonder if part of their plan is to be so incompetent that people have no trust in the state, so any attempts to bring more power back to the central government will be met with lots of resistance as politicians are seen as bumbling incompetent fools. I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to pay taxes at the moment as the current lot in power are hopeless. But as a principle I support taxation, the even distribution of wealth and those with the most in society helping those with the least.

[leicsmac]

That's not the ideaology though, the money is yours and if you want to leave it to your children you should be able to.

 

But I thought it was always about it's mine, and no one elses. No one.

 

As I said, I'm against it for the same reason as many are - you should have the freedom of choice to leave your possessions to whoever you like.

 

Envy is a sin.

 

So is greed. And pride, come to that.

 

Personally I'm a fan of all seven - but my favourite is wrath.

 

We are not talking about people at the very high end though.  The tax thresholds have not kept up with the increase in house prices, so more and more people find themselves paying tax on fairly modest homes and some savings which their parents worked hard to buy.  This is unfair to people who live in the South East - you can inherit a huge house in the North and pay nothing, but this is not the case in the South East.

 

I would say the people living in the South East already have enough living factors in their favour compared to the rest of the country.

 

That said, my stance on IT as stated above stands.

 

You're assuming the government will spend it on something that will benefit society, experience suggests different. Those vacuous whores as you call them are wasting their money with businesses that need it, doing more good than a hundred pointless committees.

 

I wasn't aware the drugs and prostitution business needed much propping up, because that's the only businesses these 'socialites' actually benefit. Possibly the paparazzi too, I guess. If they actually did start/invest in businesses that created jobs, then I'd agree.

[Guest MattP]

Sat here shaking my head at this, you really wonder what some supposed "Liberals" would actually get upto if they got any real power, frightening stuff.

 

Well this is the problem with electing muppets like Cameron and Osbourne, I do wonder if part of their plan is to be so incompetent that people have no trust in the state, so any attempts to bring more power back to the central government will be met with lots of resistance as politicians are seen asbumbling incompetent fools. I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to pay taxes at the moment as the current lot in power are hopeless. But as a principle I support taxation, the even distribution of wealth and those with the most in society helping those with the least.

 

Please tell you are trolling using the example of Cameron and Osborne over Brown and Balls from recent memory?

[sphericalfox]

 

Well this is the problem with electing muppets like Cameron and Osbourne, I do wonder if part of their plan is to be so incompetent that people have no trust in the state, so any attempts to bring more power back to the central government will be met with lots of resistance as politicians are seen as bumbling incompetent fools. I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to pay taxes at the moment as the current lot in power are hopeless. But as a principle I support taxation, the even distribution of wealth and those with the most in society helping those with the least.

 

In fairness, it could be said that about most governments. It would seem from a distance, that if a government in power feels as though they aren't going to be in the seat any longer they'll sabotage the system so that the next government can't hit the ground running. Whether that's a subconscious effort or a deliberate intention I don't know. The current government is taking drastic actions to subvert and change systems, not on a temporary basis, but ensuring that the changes they put in place are next to impossible to reverse.

[Guest MattP]

In fairness, it could be said that about most governments. It would seem from a distance, that if a government in power feels as though they aren't going to be in the seat any longer they'll sabotage the system so that the next government can't hit the ground running. Whether that's a subconscious effort or a deliberate intention I don't know. The current government is taking drastic actions to subvert and change systems, not on a temporary basis, but ensuring that the changes they put in place are next to impossible to reverse.

 

Certainly true of the last one, Brown was signing off cheques left, right and centre towards the end on anything to try and make the job as difficult as possible for the Tories.

 

They actually enjoyed it, who could forget that sickening letter Liam Bryne left, how on earth could any sane person actually vote for somebody who did this when leaving office?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm

 

 

"When I arrived at my desk on the very first day as chief secretary, I found a letter from the previous chief secretary to give me some advice, I assumed, on how I conduct myself over the months ahead.

"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said 'Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left,' which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting," he said.

 

I think pretty much sums up Browns Labour there in two sentance, incapable, imcompetent and didn't give a shit.

[leicsmac]

In fairness, it could be said that about most governments. It would seem from a distance, that if a government in power feels as though they aren't going to be in the seat any longer they'll sabotage the system so that the next government can't hit the ground running. Whether that's a subconscious effort or a deliberate intention I don't know. The current government is taking drastic actions to subvert and change systems, not on a temporary basis, but ensuring that the changes they put in place are next to impossible to reverse.

 

This does seem to be pretty standard political MO these days. Labour did it with the 'sorry there's no money' memo through massive spending, and the Tories are doing the same with their ideological changes.

 

Basically it seems to be like 'well, we're not going to be in power, so let's mess things up so we have a better chance at the next election'.

 

I've long since stopped thinking that any of our elected representatives actually have the best interests of anyone apart from themselves at heart.

Certainly true of the last one, Brown was signing off cheques left, right and centre towards the end on anything to try and make the job as difficult as possible for the Tories.

 

They actually enjoyed it, who could forget that sickening letter Liam Bryne left, how on earth could any sane person actually vote for somebody who did this when leaving office?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm

 

Must have been reading my mind there Matt. But please don't tell me the Tories aren't engaging in a similar act of sabotage.

[Guest MattP]

Must have been reading my mind there Matt. But please don't tell me the Tories aren't engaging in a similar act of sabotage.

 

Why would they, they are closing the gap on Miliband in the polls day by day?

 

Consistent economic growth, more people in work, low end of society finally having to start working for a living instead of being on handouts. Welfare budget being slashed, yeah they are really making it tough. The Labour and Tories way of dealing with finance is actually pretty similar to the Sven and Pearson debate.

 

One leaves you in such a a total mess and ruin that austerity is the only option for a few years.

[Zingari]

FT threads ranging from animal welfare homelessness and international warfare nearly always become political left/right wing arguments

 

 

I mean discussions 

[leicsmac]

Why would they, they are closing the gap on Miliband in the polls day by day?

 

Consistent economic growth, more people in work, low end of society finally having to start working for a living instead of being on handouts. Welfare budget being slashed, yeah they are really making it tough. The Labour and Tories way of dealing with finance is actually pretty similar to the Sven and Pearson debate.

 

One leaves you in such a a total mess and ruin that austerity is the only option for a few years.

 

Unemployment remaining at a steady 7.7-8.0% since they took power, economic form up and down like a honeymoon bedsheet, ideological changes to education and the NHS against the advice of professionals in both those industries that would take a lot of time to reverse if implemented. Sounds like same plan, different targets to me.

 

Sorry, but as I said above I'll take some convincing that what the Tories are doing now (or what Labour has done in the past) is the best thing for most people in this country.

 

Edit: Of course, Miliband is so inept that Cameron really doesn't have to do much to at least force a hung Parliament, which is what I think will happen in 2015.

[Webbo]

Unemployment remaining at a steady 7.7-8.0% since they took power, economic form up and down like a honeymoon bedsheet, ideological changes to education and the NHS against the advice of professionals vested interests in both those industries that would take a lot of time to reverse if implemented. Sounds like same plan, different targets to me.

 

 

If the NHS and education in this country were well run achieving good results and value for money you might have a point.

[Guest MattP]

Unemployment remaining at a steady 7.7-8.0% since they took power, economic form up and down like a honeymoon bedsheet, ideological changes to education and the NHS against the advice of professionals in both those industries that would take a lot of time to reverse if implemented. Sounds like same plan, different targets to me.

 

Sorry, but as I said above I'll take some convincing that what the Tories are doing now (or what Labour has done in the past) is the best thing for most people in this country.

 

Edit: Of course, Miliband is so inept that Cameron really doesn't have to do much to at least force a hung Parliament, which is what I think will happen in 2015.

 

Keeping Unemployment steady when you have had to cut as much of the Public Sector as was needed is a sound achievement. If the NHS stopped letting people die in the corridors and the kids were coming out of school being able to read and write properly they wouldn't need to be overhauled. Both are breeding grounds for Labour activists and support anyway so will oppose anything the current government do good or bad.

 

I agree with you on a hung parliament, we could have a few I think in the coming years with such dis-enchantment with the main two parties.

[Guest MattP]

Socialist governments always run out of other peoples money.

 

Just watching Tony Abbott having been relected after the Australian Labor Party did their bit for the cause.

[Captain...]

Sat here shaking my head at this, you really wonder what some supposed "Liberals" would actually get upto if they got any real power, frightening stuff.

 

 

Please tell you are trolling using the example of Cameron and Osborne over Brown and Balls from recent memory?

 

Using Cameron and Osbourne as they are the current muppets in charge, Brown did a lot of damage, it was sad that Darling seemed to be getting things on track when Labour lost and the Tories undid all his work with an austerity plan that has kept us down for years, again possibly deliberate, stall the economy until closer to the election.

 

Balls, so far, I don't mind, he speaks well and makes a lot of sense, but then it is always easier to be critical of the incumbent, especial when it is Osbourne. I would prefer Cable out of the 3 if I'm honest.

 

I really hope we get a proper hung parliament and parties realise that we are all in this together and we all need to work together for the good of the country and not sabotage each other. Just look at all the things Cameron has promised to do after the election, which he won't win, he may end up PM again, but there is no way they will get a majority. Referendum on Europe in 2016, a lot of the education reforms coming in in 2016. Politics is sick in this country, which is why I understand people wanting to pay as little tax as possible and keep as much power away from the state as possible, but as a principle it is what I believe. You can believe 352 is the best formation, but you put the wrong people in it then it isn't going to work.

[leicsmac]

If the NHS and education in this country were well run achieving good results and value for money you might have a point.

 

I find the idea of personal health and education having to have a financial value sickening as they both are far more important than any money, but fair enough. Materialism does seem to be the way of the world.

 

Keeping Unemployment steady when you have had to cut as much of the Public Sector as was needed is a sound achievement. If the NHS stopped letting people die in the corridors and the kids were coming out of school being able to read and write properly they wouldn't need to be overhauled. Both are breeding grounds for Labour activists and support anyway so will oppose anything the current government do good or bad.

 

I agree with you on a hung parliament, we could have a few I think in the coming years with such dis-enchantment with the main two parties.

 

The vast majority of doctors and teachers at ground level are entirely apolitical and just want to do their jobs and help people, without interference from bureaucrats and the goalposts being moved by politicians of all parties every couple of years. As I have repeatedly said, all politicians are the same to them.

 

I wonder if a hung parliament this time with no chance of a coalition will lead to some electoral reform...

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

But once your are old enough to support yourself that becomes irrelevant. You have done nothing to contribute to your parents' estate, they have supported you through your formative years and most likely beyond. But you have made no contribution to it, in fact you have made it significantly smaller, so why do you feel entitled to all of it when they die? The state provides a lot, that is why we pay taxes, think of it as a thank you to the state for all the protection and infrastructure and everything else they have provided in your life so that you can live extremely comfortably with an estate that is worth over a third of a million.

 

 

It is not stealing from the dead, as once you are dead you have nothing. You can't take it with you, if you want to think of it that way, then fine.

 

I don't see why you find it amazing, I'm a leftie I believe in taxation and the power of the state, paying taxes good the more the better, avoiding taxes bad. 

 

I find it amazing that you are so against workshy layabouts not contributing anything to society and the state, and yet support something that encourages it. Do you really think the Beckham brood are going to grow up and work hard to make a living for themselves when they know they have daddies millions to fall back on?

 

Anyway, if you are so worried about it then make sure you don't leave over a third of a million when you die, spend it all on whisky and steaks.

 

But once your are old enough to support yourself that becomes irrelevant. You have done nothing to contribute to your parents' estate, they have supported you through your formative years and most likely beyond. But you have made no contribution to it, in fact you have made it significantly smaller, so why do you feel entitled to all of it when they die? The state provides a lot, that is why we pay taxes, think of it as a thank you to the state for all the protection and infrastructure and everything else they have provided in your life so that you can live extremely comfortably with an estate that is worth over a third of a million.

 

 

It is not stealing from the dead, as once you are dead you have nothing. You can't take it with you, if you want to think of it that way, then fine.

 

I don't see why you find it amazing, I'm a leftie I believe in taxation and the power of the state, paying taxes good the more the better, avoiding taxes bad. 

 

I find it amazing that you are so against workshy layabouts not contributing anything to society and the state, and yet support something that encourages it. Do you really think the Beckham brood are going to grow up and work hard to make a living for themselves when they know they have daddies millions to fall back on?

 

Anyway, if you are so worried about it then make sure you don't leave over a third of a million when you die, spend it all on whisky and steaks.

Good post my friend. Very good. 

[Merging Cultures]

I agree. I am going to have a lie down now

I'll reply to you as I have moose on ignore cos he's a tiresome troll, unfortunately I see his quoted posts.

It is not stealing off dead people, it is the living people who have inherited a large amount of money that pay tax on it.

Ironic that those so against the entitlement attitude of the poor are such big supporters of it when it comes to the rich.

You pay tax on things you have worked for, why is it so bad to pay tax on things you haven't done anything in life to deserve.

The deceased would have paid tax on their regular income, then tax on their investment income... And then it gets taxed when inherited.

The rich will avoid these taxes by investing overseas and taking advantage of other tax loopholes. The average family continues to get hammered.

[Captain...]

The deceased would have paid tax on their regular income, then tax on their investment income... And then it gets taxed when inherited.

The rich will avoid these taxes by investing overseas and taking advantage of other tax loopholes. The average family continues to get hammered.

 

The average family doesn't have an estate worth over 650k:

 

 

 

UK households are now worth £255,502 on average each, with households £86,000 wealthier than they were a decade ago, the survey from Lloyds TSB Private Banking reveals. - See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-wealth-hits-record-high#sthash.Mx3X54Li.dpuf

 from April this year http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-wealth-hits-record-high

 

This only affects those at the top.

[The God Emperor]

 

 

Well this is the problem with electing muppets like Cameron and Osbourne, I do wonder if part of their plan is to be so incompetent that people have no trust in the state, so any attempts to bring more power back to the central government will be met with lots of resistance as politicians are seen as bumbling incompetent fools. I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to pay taxes at the moment as the current lot in power are hopeless. But as a principle I support taxation, the even distribution of wealth and those with the most in society helping those with the least.

here we hit the main problem with any ideology that supports big government.

if a government is to have centralised power over the economy and the lives of its people, then you need to make sure the right person is in charge. unfortunately this man/woman does not exist, there is no man on a white horse to vote in who will solve all our problems.

even if this person existed and they got into power and sorted everything out, they would not be in power forever. after they had gone they would leave a large centralised power structure available for the next person to abuse for personal gain or run inefficiently despite good intentions.

it would leave a large bureaucracy, and as we know from our current government bureaucracy and those of large corporations, bureaucracies are exspensive and self serving.   

[Webbo]

I find the idea of personal health and education having to have a financial value sickening as they both are far more important than any money, but fair enough. Materialism does seem to be the way of the world.

 

But we don't have an unlimited supply of money so the money we do spend has to be used as efficiently as possible. The money spend on the NHS should be spent in most part on treating patients not reducing the workload of the staff and increasing bureaucracy.