Ostriig on 13/12/2009 at 20:20

---

And the second was "not serious, important, etc.: a minor wound; a minor role." A quarter of a million pounds is not a minor sum. Drop it, you know exactly how he used the term in context.

Ostriig on 13/12/2009 at 20:40

---

Haha, nice try, keep at the strawman thing. I didn't call you a socialist, I said your argument here partly falls in that category. But don't let that stop your righteous chest thumping. As for the owner, what you don't get is the very concept - owning something means you can also transfer it, as a general thing, as opposed to your view where owning something means the state lets you play with it for as long as you're alive and should then take it back.

SubJeff on 13/12/2009 at 20:58

---

Yes SD, this idea you have that people who inherit lots get something for nothing - its silly. The fact that you use terms like "accident of DNA" speaks volumes about your attitude towards family and its very sad tbh. I do think I've been incredibly lucky life in many, many ways and I've seen likely far, far worse poverty than you have. (Part of the reason I chose this job was to give me the ability to give back and to make a contribution, both practically and monetarily.)

I don't care what the FT thinks about mansion tax and I do think that making money on the property market is earned money because you are playing the odds with an investment. If you made money through other investments, shares, whatever, it would still be earned. And btw the Lib Dems want to somehow turn capital gains tax into income tax so it seems they see eye to eye with me, not you, in that house value going up over time is classed as earned income - and you actually get more money in tax that way.

Mansion tax is stupid because its so damn arbitrary. It'll end up affecting a whole range of people that really don't fall into the super-rich bracket such as those that happen to live in London, those that have inherited property and those that have so far been working hard to buy a property, just made it and oh no what the extra cash to be paid but all our hard work why oh why

And as to the Lib Dem's crazy tax ideas - the 50% rate they suggested (I know they've stopped that but what the hell in the first damn place?) and this whole idea of raising the tax threshold so that low paid people save something like £500 a year. The knock on effect will be what? Higher taxes for everyone else and not just by £500 a year because the lower paid far outnumber everyone else.

As to social mobility - this country has a fundamental cultural weakness; people cannot and will not accept that their way of life is messed up. And none moreso than in the ghettos of the North I might add. No one needs to try because they are given breaks all the time. They get social housing, cash handouts, benefits for x,y and z and no incentive to get to work or improve themselves. And then when they do get a job some schmucks want to give them an extra few 100 quid to spend on Sky TV, booze and fags.

This country is becoming an anti-meritocracy because people who are upwardly mobile are starting to pay for it. Because we've become too touchy feely. Do you know that in some hospitals doctors are not allowed to have Dr on their ID badges because it somehow denigrates the rest of their colleagues? See how the MP expenses scandal (scandal though it was) has flipped right the other way with some things that should be allowed now being disallowed because morons who read the Daily Mail and the Sun bay for it. The fact that Fat Cat is used in our tabloids so often says it all - if other people are better off than you it's not fair somehow.

Isn't it interesting that in Taiwan, a country with no unemployment benefits to speak of, less than 5% of people live below the poverty line yet here in the UK where we have unemployment benefits it stands above 10%?

The only attitude change I've seen in this country in recent years that has given me any heart is the increasing amount of respect our servicemen who are in conflict zones are getting.

CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 21:52

---

Thanks for proving my point. I wasn't intending to argue the merits of homeschooling, thats outside the scope of this thread. I did say that its an issue where those on the left tend to say "Duh, they shouldn't do that because thats how the law is!". You conveniently took the bait.




I'm on your side of the issue, but hopefully you'll join him just for being an obnoxious tard.

SD on 13/12/2009 at 22:21

---

Oh, I see. So when you said my "entire point boils down to socialist rhetoric", you didn't actually mean my entire argument, just part of it. Riiiight.

Of course, you're wrong in the first place. Socialism is an end in itself, and that's not the end I'm aiming for, so my rhetoric cannot possibly be socialist rhetoric, even if I may advocate some of the same methods. Tax for me is the means to an end; for socialists, I might say punitive taxes on the rich is the end. Subtle differences; I wouldn't expect you to grasp those.



So why aren't you opposed to all tax then? I mean, if the owner should have the say over what happens with their wealth, isn't ALL tax to be opposed?




What part of "you get to keep 73% of a £1m estate" don't you understand?



You don't think £730,000 is an advantage?

Bear in mind that the average inheritor of a wealthy estate is going to be in their 50s or 60s. We're not generally talking about children being cheated out of their inheritance by the big evil state.

Incidentally, I can already tell that nobody read the Martin O'Neill article I linked to. Pity.



Anyone living in a £2m house is supremely wealthy.




It happens to be true. If my parents died tomorrow (god forbid) and left me and my siblings their 4-bedroom detached house in Liverpool, their 4-bedroom terrace in Liverpool, their flat in Sheffield, the half-share in my house that they have, their two cars and all of their cash, what have I actually done to merit all of that property?

If you can't see that I would be getting a lot of stuff for doing absolutely nothing, you're just deluding yourself.



What utter nonsense. You seem to have real trouble with the concept of earning. Earnings are wages, something you get when you put work in; what work, exactly, have you done in buying a property and living there?




Lord save me. If you have a £2m property, you're not wealthy? Words fail me.



Actually, any shortfall made by slashing income tax is to be made up by green taxes on polluting activities. Please don't let me dissuade you from issuing forth more of your uninformed blather, though.



I don't doubt for a second that a benefits culture exists in some areas. But this isn't because these are inherently bad or lazy people, this is due to the circumstances people find themselves in. You in your gilded halls might find it hard to believe, but the vast majority of people want to work for a living and be productive. That they lack the means to do so is criminal.