If you found a gun would you hand it in to the police?

SD on 14/12/2009 at 11:08

Quote Posted by SD

Are you against VAT too? Fuel duty? Tobacco duty? Alcohol duty? These are all taxes on money that has already been taxed.

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

Yeah actually, I am.

Seriously? Well, you just took a huge amount of money out of the budget; how are you going to make up that shortfall?

But I guess you must be against all tax, right? I mean, your employer has already been taxed on the money it pays you in wages.

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

And it matters because once I have paid my tax on a monthly basis the government has no fucking say in what I do with it.

Why?

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

Goverment is removing the aspect of choice from passing on wealth without it incurring costly penalties, which I totally disagree with.

Do you think society benefits from wealth being entrenched at the top, regardless of how much those people have done to merit it?

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

Oh, so if I make a prudent choice in an investment market of any sort and that pays off - I have not "earned" that?

Correctamundo.

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

You're the one who seems to have a spectacularly narrow viewpoint on what earned money is.

It's not my definition. I can't help it if people lack basic economic understanding.

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

As long as I'm down in the coal mines earning money to pay for a house that turns no profitable growth via market conditions or otherwise, not investing it for any sort of return and have no parents that croak and leave me an inheritence, it seems I'm alright by Stronts!

Coal mines, what?

If you're talking about people working and earning a wage, in a coal mine or otherwise, then, yes, those people are "alright" by me, because they're the people driving the economy and fuelling economic growth.

Those people are contributing far more by their work than someone sitting around in a £1m house bought for £20,000 20 years earlier. Sorry if you can't see that.

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

The rest of your post kind of runs together in a socialist rant to be honest.

Do you actually understand what socialism is?

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Anyway for all this talk of omg 1 million pound estates, I'm more concerned with middle class homes spilling over into a tax that I don't think was ever meant to be aimed at them.

Let's put this into context: only something like 5% of estates pay ANY inheritance tax whatsoever in the UK.

I'd like to think it's possible to be in favour of the wealthiest 5% paying a little tax on unearned income without people thinking you are the reincarnation of Karl Mark :rolleyes:

Koki on 14/12/2009 at 11:12

Quote Posted by SD

Do you think society benefits from wealth being entrenched at the top, regardless of how much those people have done to merit it?

Do you think rich people build gigantic treasuries where they put all their money in cash and swim in it?

Inline Image:

http://puesoccurrences.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/scrooge-mcduck.jpg

If not, just what DO they do with all that money? :erg:

SD on 14/12/2009 at 11:25

Quote Posted by Koki

Do you think rich people build gigantic treasuries where they put all their money in cash and swim in it?

Not exactly, but people with a lot of wealth spend a lower proportion of it then people with a little wealth. From a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#Diminishing_marginal_utility) utilitarian perspective, spending money is good for the economy, so you want to avoid accumulations of wealth at the top.

SubJeff on 14/12/2009 at 12:06

SD gets a hard on for definitions itt.

Come on SD, forget the economic jargon definition of earned and look at the thread again. Use the word made if you have to. Its all about what you've done to get your money and investing it is doing something.

Aerothorn on 14/12/2009 at 12:14

I cannot believe you people turned a topic on a truly fascinating subject (in which all actors acted as they should have, and the result is awful) and turned it into yet another argument about the inheritance tax.

SD on 14/12/2009 at 13:21

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

Come on SD, forget the economic jargon definition of earned and look at the thread again. Use the word made if you have to. Its all about what you've done to get your money and investing it is doing something.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. If I buy a house for £100,000 and live there, and ten years later it's worth £1m, I haven't "earnt" that extra £900,000, technically or morally. All I've done is receive an untaxed benefit of £900,000 due to soaring house prices. Society hasn't benefitted in any way from me living in a property that is rapidly appreciating in value. I haven't "worked" for that £900,000.

Quote Posted by Aerothorn

Blame Subjective Effect for attacking my party for a policy we dropped four years ago.

Anyway, a debate on tax is still interesting.

Aerothorn on 14/12/2009 at 14:09

It's not that I think it's inherently uninteresting, it's just a pretty generic debate and the topic case was a far from generic happening.

Swiss Mercenary on 14/12/2009 at 14:23

Quote:

BLAH BLAH SEMANTICS

Person D's income is earned income. A, B and C is unearned income.

Thanks for the semantics lesson. Now, please explain to me why A is in any way less entitled to the increase of his wealth then D. Morally, or technically.

Quote Posted by SD

So, suppose I bought a house in the American Mid-West, for $500,000, and live there, and ten years later, it's worth $150,000 because the economy's in the shitter, what do you call that? According to your position, I've received an unearned loss of 350,000$ due to dropping housing prices. I haven't harmed society in any way from me living in a property that rapidly depreciated in value. I haven't taken 350,000$ worth of wealth from society for living in that house for 10 years.

Does that mean I deserve a handout?

And if I deserve to take a penalty from the economy when it swings against me, why do I not deserve to earn a bonus when it swings for me.

Here's an even better question for you.

Suppose I bought a house for $300,000. Every house on the street was worth that much. I could afford to buy any of them. Let's say in ten years, every house on the street is worth $1,000,000, including mine.

Since you saying that since I don't deserve the wealth associated with my home rising in value, does that mean that in your perfect world, I should not be able to trade my home for any of the other million dollar houses on the street?

After all, I didn't earn the million. Neither technically or moraly am I entitled to a million. I only earned $300,000 of it. That ought to go only 30% of the way to buying the house across the street.

tl; dr
Don't be dumb, investing is earning, you're just sour grapes about it because HURR DURR PEOPLE DOING IT DONT ACTUALLY WORK. If it were that easy, everyone would do it successfully... Right?

Quote:

Not exactly, but people with a lot of wealth spend a lower proportion of it then people with a little wealth.

That's because they don't spend it. They (Or their bank) invest it.

Koki on 14/12/2009 at 14:23

Quote Posted by SD

Not exactly, but people with a lot of wealth spend a lower proportion of it then people with a little wealth.

You're beginning to bite your own foot here. If a millionaire spends 1% of his money, it's still more than an average Joe spending 50%.

Not to mention there's more to money than spending. Like investing for example, something "lower classes" are not very good at.

Kolya on 14/12/2009 at 14:37

I'm completely with SD on this one. (And not just for the big economical picture, but for moral reasons as well.)
Quite a few people see this from a weird schizophrenic zombie perspective here: Seemingly you're being taxed twice. But in fact you'll be dead and have been taxed just once. It's your children that are taxed for their income. Just like everyone else is.