Namdrol on 13/12/2009 at 19:06
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You want to put it on the super-rich, fine, but the Lib Dems wanted to put it earnings over 100k. 100k? Insane.
And what % of the UK earning population get over this fabled 100 grand?
Er...1% with the median income being £22,700
(All figures 2004-2005, last year figures available)
And yes that does include the average family Doctor.
Who are payed by.. hmm, who could that be?
Ah yes, the taxpayer.
Ostriig on 13/12/2009 at 19:24
Quote Posted by SD
In that case, maybe we should abolish tax altogether, let wealth become even more entrenched and ensure that social mobility is close to zero. Recipe for a truly wonderful society, that.
Or maybe you could refrain from addressing points that no one's made.
Quote:
Congratulations, you're an imbecile.
Inheritance tax affects about 4% of estates in the UK. Someone inheriting £1m for doing precisely nothing will pay £270,000 tax on that and "only" receive £730,000. Cry me a fucking river.
I'll tell you what really
is abusive, and it's not that the Paris Hiltons of this world have a minor portion of their inheritance appropriated by the state. Abusive is 30% of children in the UK living in poverty. Abusive is an average male life expectancy of 54 in parts of the UK. Abusive is city executives paying less of their income in tax than the people who clean their offices.
Here is (
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/10/inheritance-tax-iht-death) an article from someone who isn't an imbecile.
And nothing in your self-righteous rant does anything but further illustrate a lack of respect for property on your part.
Why does he pay the 270k, considering the entire sum that's being inherited has already been taxed? Relatively, a quarter of a sum is not a "minor portion", and dealing in absolutes, 270k is not a small amount of money. More importantly, you're looking at the entire situation in reverse, like a complete moron - it's not about whether the person
inheriting the wealth has earned the money, it's about the person who
has earned it having the right to pass it on to their children, just as easily as they could otherwise spend it or burn it in a pile if they chose to.
Just like you can argue that, in some cases, people may not merit inheriting their parents' estate, it can be argued that some people in those downtrodden classes you list may also not merit the support of others. But, unlike you, I realise these are individual cases and don't take it to the extreme of extending that argument over the entirety of those in unfortunate financial standing, as I
don't argue for the full abolishment of taxes, like you decided to pull out of your ass. When we all pay the same taxes
percentage-wise, people still contribute more or less money to the state budget, according to their income, but the relation is linear.
And as for the insults - uncalled for and you can go fuck yourself, you ridiculous cockwipe.
Quote:
Abusive is city executives paying less of their income in tax than the people who clean their offices.
Singling this out because it's the one sensible point you do make in that cesspit of a post. Go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back.
SubJeff on 13/12/2009 at 19:42
Quote Posted by SD
Inheritance tax affects about 4% of estates in the UK. Someone inheriting £1m for doing precisely nothing will pay £270,000 tax on that and "only" receive £730,000. Cry me a fucking river.
That's just it though, who said they did nothing? I inherited property because my family wanted to leave it to me and they did that because I was a loving son and grandson,
and they wanted me to have it. And the threshold is £325k atm, which is a house, some savings,possibly a car and maybe some other assets. Its not that high and affects many thousands of people, even if it is less than 5%.
But I digress, I think inheritance tax is ok because, as you say, "cry me a river" - people still get lots out of it. Its the attitude you have about it that is off-putting.
Quote:
Abusive is 30% of children in the UK living in poverty. Abusive is an average male life expectancy of 54 in parts of the UK. Abusive is city executives paying less of their income in tax than the people who clean their offices.
City execs I can agree on. But the other 2 points are not the fault of people with money. Sure some people have a bad start in life, but that's down to education and cultural norms. And unless your low life expectancy is due to genetics then, in the UK certainly, its partly down to your own choices. And we can't dictate what people do can we? Nooooo.
Quote:
Oh good, does this mean you're going to drop the nonsensical idea that IHT is anti-meritocratic, then?
The tax itself isn't, no, but in the long term it is because its taking wealth out of a family that have earned it.
Quote:
'the fuck? Families are so splintered because 4% of them have to pay tax on a whopping great inheritance?
No, because parents have your attitude of "I earned it, why should they get any?". What sort of trust do you have in your family, what sort of bonds can you have if you really believe this? Even if I had a son who was a waster I'd want to help him better himself somehow.
Quote:
And now you're hammering the Lib Dems for policies they dropped in March 2006. GG.
But they were still talking crazy tax ideas all this time. Seemed to drop it for a while but they came back, didn't they?
Quote:
Superb. 0.5% tax on house values over £2m is the "dumbest thing ever" because... it has a silly name?
No, because its a stupid idea. My point was when do you stop the taxation? As people earn more and accrue more do you just keep taxing everything they have? Where is the incentive to try harder if whatever reward you make you just get taken off you?
Not necessarily. But even if they do, so what? The UK has some of the lowest property taxes in the developed world. We also had one of the most inflated housing bubbles. The two are not unrelated.
Quote:
Translation: I've made
my money, and the rest of you can eat cake.
Not at all. I'm all for helping people out of the poverty trap. I'm not for handouts for nothing though, or worse - exploitation of the system to get something for nothing. I'm equally outraged at execs fiddling taxes as I am at state spongers and the government for taxing/rinsing people who work hard for all they can.
Quote:
And what % of the UK earning population get over this fabled 100 grand?
Er...1% with the median income being £22,700
(All figures 2004-2005, last year figures available)
And yes that does include the average family Doctor.
Who are payed by.. hmm, who could that be?
Ah yes, the taxpayer.
I don't see how the % of people earning it is relevant, it's still a silly level to set it at.
And what has this got to do with family doctors and who cares how they are paid. They still pay more tax then most anyway, and a.the only reason the taxpayer pays for them is we have the NHS, which is free at the point of delivery so shut up and b. if we didn't have an NHS it'd be private healthcare which you know you wouldn't like.
SD on 13/12/2009 at 19:44
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Why does he pay the 270k
Why does anyone pay any tax? Because tax is a necessary evil.
Why is inheritance tax better than income tax? Because it taxes unearned wealth rather than earned wealth, and thus does not disincentivise effort.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
considering the entire sum that's being inherited has already been taxed?
Why do people keep utilising ludicrous double taxation arguments? Because they are idiots.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Relatively, a quarter of a sum is not a "minor portion"
Of course £270,000 is a minor portion of £1,000,000. Are you so stupid that you don't even understand what
minor means?
Quote Posted by Ostriig
and dealing in absolutes, 270k is not a small amount of money.
But we're not dealing with absolutes. We're dealing with fortunes here.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
More importantly, you're looking at the entire situation in reverse, like a complete moron - it's not about whether the person
inheriting the wealth has earned the money
Er yes, you butthole, that's
exactly what meritocracy is about. In meritocracy, your rewards are proportional to the effort you expend, and people get what they deserve. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Just like you can argue that, in some cases, people may not merit inheriting their parents' estate
No, in ALL cases. Frankly someone is lucky that the state allows them to keep £730,000 of a £1m fortune for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
it can be argued that some people in those downtrodden classes you list may also not merit the support of others.
Which is irrelevant, because they're not in a position where their merit can be judged or rewarded. When you're wondering where your next paycheque is coming from, it's kind of hard to do that MBA you always thought you were capable of doing. I'm more than happy to use some of the proceeds from a wealthy estate to give people like that a leg up.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
And as for the insults - uncalled for and you can go fuck yourself, you ridiculous cockwipe.
If you don't want to be called an imbecile, don't use imbecilic arguments.
henke on 13/12/2009 at 20:02
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Do you a) call the police to report this and get someone to deal with it or b) ring the police station the next day saying you want to talk to the chief superintendent then when you get to the meeting, remove a gun from a black plastic bag in front of him.
What part of that doesn't seem stupid to you?
Ah you know, I really don't wanna speculate any further on this stuff. Maybe he could've done things in a better way, or maybe he was fucked the moment he picked up that bag.
Ostriig on 13/12/2009 at 20:07
Quote Posted by SD
all your base are belong to the state
Oh, for fuck's sake, you're just a complete fucking moron. Your entire point boils down to socialist rhetoric and pure aberration while skirting around the essential issue - that it's not about the receiver, it's about the
owner. But that term is as foreign to you as the word (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minor?r=75) "minor". At least you're moving forward, though, this time there aren't
any worthwhile points in your post, giant ball of shit that it is.
Do everyone a favour and jump down a well. Hopefully, they don't have internet down there.
Namdrol on 13/12/2009 at 20:07
It seems the dude had a history with the police. (Not that that
should mean anything.)
The (
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/11/paul-clarke-anatomy-of-injustice.html) link that ceebs gave us on the first page was a good read on the case.
Edit; Ostriig, the first definition in that link was this -
Quote:
...lesser, as in size, extent, or importance, or being or noting the lesser of two: a minor share.
How is that not 270,000 in relation to 730,000?
Chimpy Chompy on 13/12/2009 at 20:11
POINT FOR POINT RAGE
NO SHUT UP I'M RIGHT
Seems to me that people earn for their families too, not just themselves. So slap too much tax on what they pass on and and it's a further incentive to go do a Scots Taffer... this country sometimes feels like a crap return on all the tax we pay, ya know?
SubJeff on 13/12/2009 at 20:14
It certainly shouldn't mean anything Namdrol. Even if he had been done for possession of a firearm previously it shouldn't prejudice this case.
And well done on selecting the definition of minor that suits you. Do you perhaps think that the second definition in that link may be more apt - "not serious, important," - because if not you must have hella money can I haves some please?
Quote Posted by SD
Why do people keep utilising ludicrous double taxation arguments? Because they are idiots.
How is it not double tax? I pay tax on my earnings, capital gains tax on the houses I sell, VAT on all the stuff I bought for the house both in building materials and furnishings, council tax throughout the time I own it and THEN my kids have to pay tax when I leave it to them?
Better gift it to them before I die then, hadn't I? They won't have to pay some sort of tax on a gift they receive will they? Oh shi...
SD on 13/12/2009 at 20:19
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
That's just it though, who said they did nothing? I inherited property because my family wanted to leave it to me and they did that because I was a loving son and grandson,
and they wanted me to have it.
Good for you. But if you can't see that you were incredibly fortunate to come from a family where you could inherit a substantial amount, then you've really lived a sheltered life.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But I digress, I think inheritance tax is ok because, as you say, "cry me a river" - people still get lots out of it. Its the attitude you have about it that is off-putting.
Which attitude would this be - the attitude that people shouldn't get something for nothing? The attitude that rewards in life should be proportional to the effort and work people put in rather than the good fortune of being born into a wealthy family? I won't make any apology for holding such attitudes.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
City execs I can agree on. But the other 2 points are not the fault of people with money. Sure some people have a bad start in life, but that's down to education and cultural norms. And unless your low life expectancy is due to genetics then, in the UK certainly, its partly down to your own choices. And we can't dictate what people do can we? Nooooo.
It's no coincidence that the people who make the worst choices are those who have the poorest upbringing. The biggest factor in how well a person does in life is how wealthy their parents were. Forgive me if I want to change that and I want to give people at the bottom end a fair crack of the whip too. We have one of the lowest rates of social mobility in the developed world. By and large, if you are born into poverty, you're gonna stay there. How can that be right?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
The [inheritance] tax itself isn't [anti-meritocratic], no, but in the long term it is because its taking wealth out of a family that have earned it.
A
family doesn't earn wealth. Individuals earn wealth. If you want to look at it rationally, why should
I have some divine right to the fruits of my parents' labour over and above anyone else merely by virtue of the fact that I share a lot of their DNA?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Even if I had a son who was a waster I'd want to help him better himself somehow.
That's great. I want to help
everyone better themselves, accident of DNA or otherwise.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But they were still talking crazy tax ideas all this time. Seemed to drop it for a while but they came back, didn't they?
No, actually, I don't believe a mansion tax is a "crazy idea", and nor does the Financial Times, for what it's worth. The principle of taxing unearned and entrenched wealth above earned wealth is an important one for me. It should be an important principle for anyone who believes in meritocracy.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No, [mansion tax is the dumbest thing ever] because its a stupid idea.
Are you going to explain why you think it's a stupid idea?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
My point was when do you stop the taxation?
When you have enough revenue to be able to achieve your aims? This might be more
or less than the current tax take, incidentally. The important considerations with any system of taxation are that:
(a) it is fair - and obviously, people disagree with what
fairness entails; for me, fairness is when people get what they deserve. And
(b) it does not disincentivise hard work - which clearly marks taxes on unearned wealth (property wealth tax, inheritance tax) as better than taxes on earned wealth (income tax)
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
As people earn more and accrue more do you just keep taxing everything they have?
But I'm not talking about taxing
earnings. I am all for keeping tax on earnings - income tax - as low as possible. I would happily slash income tax, if I'm honest, especially at the bottom end. I think it's ridiculous that anyone earning less than £10,000 a year should pay
any income tax whatsoever.
If you buy a house for £350,000 and ten years later it's worth £2,350,000 - not an unrealistic scenario the way the housing market has ballooned in recent years - are you claiming that that £2m differential has been somehow
earnt?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I'm all for helping people out of the poverty trap.
Goodo. That sort of thing requires money. The only question then is where do you get that money from. The Tories want to raise the inheritance tax threshold from £350,000 to £2m. I see that as an obscene tax cut for the rich, but evidently you think differently.
