General Election 2017
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
hedgehog50  Croydon 19 May 17 7.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Most of you on here just want more and more tax to be collected and more and more state involvement in more and more aspects of our lives. This is despite the long history of waste, inefficiency, failed schemes and general failure of most state endeavours. What we need is less and less taxation and less and less state involvement.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays 19 May 17 7.22am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Many people work and save specifically to build a an inheritance for their children and grandchildren. No one in their right mind is going to save to enrich the taxman. Many people do...of course they do. They look to first create advantage and then cement it for their family. It's the most natural thing for good hard working people to want to do. But government is about representing everyone in a world with finite resources and it's not just representing the successful and those who benefit from them.....Doing that is what got us into the housing crises in the first place. Like I say inheritance goes completely against meritocracy. But the state should only get involved beyond a certain level. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 May 2017 7.22am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Kermit8  Hevon 19 May 17 7.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Most of you on here just want more and more tax to be collected and more and more state involvement in more and more aspects of our lives. This is despite the long history of waste, inefficiency, failed schemes and general failure of most state endeavours. What we need is less and less taxation and less and less state involvement. So who will pay for your state pension and who will pay for the education of 90% of our kids, and what if you get ill and there is no NHS, and what about rubbish collection, the police, the army, etc etc etc ? Yeah, ok. Let the state off those responsibilities and let's see how much that improves the country.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 May 17 7.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Most of you on here just want more and more tax to be collected and more and more state involvement in more and more aspects of our lives. This is despite the long history of waste, inefficiency, failed schemes and general failure of most state endeavours. What we need is less and less taxation and less and less state involvement. Sure we can all point to problems with the state....But it's from a position of comfort where we have benefited from it. You are protected by its army, fire, police and probably have benefited from school and health services at some point...it keeps criminals locked up....Pensions for god sake...Can you imagine what life would be without them? You slag the state off but its achievements are considerable. Show me a country doing well without a considerable state. The American state put a man on the moon. The British state created a medical service free at the point of delivery. It looks after the elderly...to an extent.. at a time where so many families pretend they can't...when in truth they won't. The profit motive can do great things but its limited in scope by its requirements. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 May 2017 7.39am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 19 May 17 8.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Of course the state should provide essential services, education, welfare, and defence and law and order. But it should keep well away from everything else.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 19 May 17 8.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
[quote=Stirlingsays;3170286 The British state created a medical service free at the point of delivery. It looks after the elderly...to an extent.. at a time where so many families pretend they can't...when in truth they won't. This. It makes you laugh when you simplify it. Offspring want the cash. Elderly want to give offspring the cash. Offspring don't want to look after offspring for the cash. Elderly and offspring expect taxpayers to pay for the care so they can spend the cash or give it to their offspring who also won't want to look after them. Funny really. I have relatives who didn't expect offspring or state to pay for their care. They saved up knowing that if the wife died first, the husband wouldn't cope on his own. Wife did die first. Daughter took her widowed father in for a number of years until a chain of events meant he went into care, paid for by their savings and a small contribution with government pension. It cost at least the gross average salary. It's very Tory to expect people to be responsible for themselves, which I would like to see more. By that I mean showing some responsibility for themselves rather than being irresponsible, not solely responsible for yourself. But then it's also a bit socialist as well, which makes me laugh that they don't like it. The socialist relatives of mine were prepared to put old age man in care as soon as was required, whatever the cost, not expecting any cash at the end. Charming. The Asian and Mediterraneans in this country must think we're a heartless bunch of cvnts. They'd just do it. In fact in a lot of cases you can upsize so you barely see OAP and even one of you not work the cost of care is so expensive. You'd probably need to earn £45k gross to pay for a care home, although you can subtract the OAP's pension(s) off that cost. Over £30k for care homes. £7.50 per hour for workers. Who are the mugs? 24/7 personal care would cost £125k. Maybe get care qualifications, charge your parent until they're skint,Cohen they go into a home. Or get your family friend to pretend they're the carer.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mstrobez 19 May 17 8.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Of course the state should provide essential services, education, welfare, and defence and law and order. But it should keep well away from everything else. If we want these essential services to actually work with any form of efficiency, the government has to have some form of authority. The money it costs For these essential services in a growing population is extortionate and everyone chips in. It's difficult with the scale of world problems to ask a government to provide these "essentials" without them having notable control over the economy. Edited by Mstrobez (19 May 2017 8.44am)
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 19 May 17 8.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Many people work and save specifically to build a an inheritance for their children and grandchildren. No one in their right mind is going to save to enrich the taxman. Or they're just boring hoarding b@stards. Most houses cost over £100k and I don't know of any mortgage companies that let you release equity knowing you're going to make the payments with only that released equity. You could scale down and go on many luxury cruises, and pay for lots of holidays for your offspring, but the government could legally have a hold on the value of your house apart from £100k. Evading that would be serious fraud. They've probably gone beyond a reasonable level and if they kept it reasonable, much more than £100k, then it may not have created such an angry reaction.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 19 May 17 8.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by .TUX.
Stop pretending 'fat free is good' while pumping sugar into everything as a taste substitute would be a start? I would put to you that you are the one that is not too bright. The debate was on what is the cost of obese people to the NHS in relation to people with mental problems. I have not mentioned "fat free food is good for you" any where in my post. What I said was when you see obese people in the street they are normally pushing the largest pie or ice cream down their throat as if there was no tomorrow. The should look in the mirror more often I think and see what we have to look at when they walk by.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 19 May 17 8.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
I would put to you that you are the one that is not too bright. The debate was on what is the cost of obese people to the NHS in relation to people with mental problems. I have not mentioned "fat free food is good for you" any where in my post. What I said was when you see obese people in the street they are normally pushing the largest pie or ice cream down their throat as if there was no tomorrow. The should look in the mirror more often I think and see what we have to look at when they walk by. Purple lower legs bigger than my thighs. Then they go back for seconds because there's still time before the visit to their GP or coach trip on channel 4. Edited by Rudi Hedman (19 May 2017 8.59am)
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 May 17 9.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
In that case, in your final days, you might as well cash in all your assets and have a big bonfire in your garden of all the cash rather than letting it get into the hands of taxman. Or give it to charity? Or spend it on going to the theatre, supporting the arts in general, going on holiday, buying that car you always wanted... My suggestion is that it's fairer to be taxed in the hands of the beneficiary and not the estate and as it's unearned income it should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income. Furthermore inheritance is proportionally given to the already well off so taxing it at a higher rate is fairer from that perspective. I also suggested that each recipient could have a nominal tax free amount of c.£50k so you could give smaller amounts more widely, which would be more likely to be spent more quickly and so boost the economy and create a more equal distribution across society. Just taking a lump out of the estate over what is now essentially £1m and then being able to hand the whole lot over to someone else who has not paid tax on it doesn't seem fair to me.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 May 17 9.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
It is theirs because as you say, it has been given to them. Comparing it to income tax is a facile argument. What next, taxing birthday presents or wedding gifts? Lifetime gifts are already included within the scope of inheritance tax. If you had actually read what I'd written you'd see that I had suggested a de minimis tax free amount for EACH recipient. I would suggest that lifetime gifts could easily be brought within the scope of what I have suggested in a similar way to the current application. (I believe it's a current de minimis of £3k per year per recipient). So if you give someone a "birthday present" of £5k now and die tomorrow that present would be included in the value of your estate and be within the scope of IHT. So you're point is facile as your example is already within the scope.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.