Do you want to discuss boring politics? (21 Viewers)

[TomRad85]

Legally it is different but in the logic should it be? Do work for money - get taxed. Do nothing for money - don't get taxed. Surely you can see how that doesn't make sense and is a situation that only exists because those with all the money shaped the laws that made it the case out of self-interest. Then tell the working classes that the pittance they've scraped together in a life of toil can be passed onto their family and they lap it up like it's some huge act of generosity and benevolence.

As you say you're entitled to do what you're suggesting and I don't begrudge you that at all. I'm just not convinced that is what the rules should be but until they're changed you do what you feel is best for your family.

The logic is that I feel the best use of my money is to ensure my son has the best life I can possibly give him. That's what would give me to most joy out of what I've earned. I don't apply the same logic to some cash in hand workers.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I’ve got most of my money in a discretionary trust - it does exactly as you want - the beneficiary is taxed on it as income when the beneficiary withdraws it but it’s attracting no IHT - why should my estate pay out?

If all of your assets were placed in those trusts and attract income tax when the beneficiaries withdraw then that would be fine.

If, however, you have other assets which are not in trust then they should be treated the same way. They will have transferred from you to another person and so should be taxed accordingly.

Basically what you're choosing to do I think should be the default. I'm not suggesting IHT on the estate and then tax it again as income. But if IHT is to stay I think it needs to have progressively higher bands of tax.

 

[Grendel]

Legally it is different but in the logic should it be? Do work for money - get taxed. Do nothing for money - don't get taxed. Surely you can see how that doesn't make sense and is a situation that only exists because those with all the money shaped the laws that made it the case out of self-interest. Then tell the working classes that the pittance they've scraped together in a life of toil can be passed onto their family and they lap it up like it's some huge act of generosity and benevolence.

As you say you're entitled to do what you're suggesting and I don't begrudge you that at all. I'm just not convinced that is what the rules should be but until they're changed you do what you feel is best for your family.

So you think people should not be rewarded at all for doing nothing? do nothing for money I assume you mean also don’t get paid any money from the state?

 

[Ian1779]

Nige is obviously in need of a few quid again

Grifters gotta grift….

 

[Grendel]

The logic is that I feel the best use of my money is to ensure my son has the best life I can possibly give him. That's what would give me to most joy out of what I've earned. I don't apply the same logic to some cash in hand workers.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

exactly - why should half you money go on taxes to keep Colin Pitchfork as an example in a B and B arrangement with free healthcare for life. Thank fuck we don’t have morons like SBD running the country

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It really is the beginning of the end for Johnson. Even Laura K has turned...

Throwing a hand grenade back into the building as she leaves to make sure in the future the BBC gets regulated so it has to tell stuff predominantly as a Tory mouthpiece.

Or she's got a lucrative job lined up with someone and part of the deal is to bring down the PM to get themselves or someone they want into the top job.

 

[Grendel]

Throwing a hand grenade back into the building as she leaves to make sure in the future the BBC gets regulated so it has to tell stuff predominantly as a Tory mouthpiece.

Or she's got a lucrative job lined up with someone and part of the deal is to bring down the PM to get themselves or someone they want into the top job.

What has gone wrong with your life to make you so jealous of people with money?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

exactly - why should half you money go on taxes to keep Colin Pitchfork as an example in a B and B arrangement with free healthcare for life. Thank fuck we don’t have morons like SBD running the country

Of course it all goes on child killers and ayslum seekers...

Conveniently forget tax also pays kids in care, the elderly, the disabled, those with mental health needs, their carers, education, police, healthcare...

But at least Tarquin can afford another 10k bottle of vintage champagne instead so all is good with the world.

And don't pretend you don't want morons running the country - you're Boris' biggest fanboy.

 

[rob9872]

Can you imagine being PVA, waking up in the morning and thinking, that despite having already done it for 500 consecutive days, 'today I'll post a few more anti Boris clips on a football internet forum', just in case there is someone out there who might be unaware of his hatred.

Life must be a hoot!

 

[Nick]

Can you imagine being PVA, waking up in the morning and thinking, that despite having already done it for 500 consecutive days, 'today I'll post a few more anti Boris clips on a football internet forum', just in case there is someone out there who might be unaware of his hatred.

Life must be a hoot!

Call a few people racist as well.

Makes me wonder how people get by when it comes to non politics.

 

[PVA]

Can you imagine being PVA, waking up in the morning and thinking, that despite having already done it for 500 consecutive days, 'today I'll post a few more anti Boris clips on a football internet forum', just in case there is someone out there who might be unaware of his hatred.

Life must be a hoot!

Oh I thought this is the politics thread and 'Boris' is the Prime Minister.

Silly me!

 

[rob9872]

Of course it all goes on child killers and ayslum seekers...

Conveniently forget tax also pays kids in care, the elderly, the disabled, those with mental health needs, their carers, education, police, healthcare...

But at least Tarquin can afford another 10k bottle of vintage champagne instead so all is good with the world.

And don't pretend you don't want morons running the country - you're Boris' biggest fanboy.

Sorry, just for balance, there will be tax payable on that £10k bottle of vintage - helping contribute to those poor people you mention and more benefit than simply accumulating welfare

 

[CCFCSteve]

You've fallen hook, line and sinker for the 'everyone benefits' line. It benefits those who have the most ability to pay the most. The people most likely to lose out will be those who have modest assets, the people most likely to gain are those with lots. It is more than an imperfect solution - it's an absolutely terrible choice and there are far fairer ways of doing it.

NIC has an upper earnings limit so above a certain wage they pay no more than someone earning less than them. So again it is those on modest wages that will see the biggest proportion of their wages taken.

Nearly everyone does benefit compared to the current situation. At the moment there is less money going in the pot and there is no real cap on contributions. Billions more is (supposedly) going to make its way into the system hopefully improving care for all. I appreciate the graph below doesn’t look pretty if you want richer people to pay more but think it does show everyone retains a higher proportion of their assets compared to current system

People earning more do pay more NIC. I think it’s just above 50k the rate is now an extra 3.25% (up from 2%)

 

[TomRad85]

Thank fuck we don’t have morons like SBD running the country

Not yet, although I should probably make an emergency escape plan for that eventuality.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So you think people should not be rewarded at all for doing nothing? do nothing for money I assume you mean also don’t get paid any money from the state?

Bit of an odd argument seeing as you're always going on about people being given free money for doing nothing.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be 'rewarded' (not the word I'd have chosen) for doing nothing, just that anything they do gain should be treated as taxable. I don't think that's a particularly unfair thing to suggest.

 

[rob9872]

Oh I thought this is the politics thread and 'Boris' is the Prime Minister.

Silly me!

It is and I'd rather you post here than all over other threads as I rarely pop in, it's just like Groundhog Day and I was merely pointing out how boring you come over. Hopefully you get it off your chest and in real life are quite normal, but I imagine you continue moaning and ranting to all that will listen.

 

[shmmeee]

Sorry, just for balance, there will be tax payable on that £10k bottle of vintage - helping contribute to those poor people you mention and more benefit than simply accumulating welfare

Only so much consumption above the average a rich person can make though. That’s the problem.

I post this a lot but this billionaire explains the problems with trickle down theory well:

 

[PVA]

It is and I'd rather you post here than all over other threads as I rarely pop in, it's just like Groundhog Day and I was merely pointing out how boring you come over. Hopefully you get it off your chest and in real life are quite normal, but I imagine you continue moaning and ranting to all that will listen.

I couldn't give a fuck if you find it boring or find me boring.

It's the politics thread and Johnson is the Prime Minister so it's fair game.

if you're happy with him dividing the country, making it poorer, ruining it's reputation then that's also fair game, but I'm not.

 

[rob9872]

Ok looks like I've not missed much in here, see you all in a month or so for rinse and repeat

Toodle pip

 

[rob9872]

I couldn't give a fuck if you find it boring or find me boring.

It's the politics thread and Johnson is the Prime Minister so it's fair game.

if you're happy with him dividing the country, making it poorer, ruining it's reputation then that's also fair game, but I'm not.

Ruining the reputation of 'fuck this racist little country' yes I forgot what a proud patriot you were.

Good night!

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Can you imagine being PVA, waking up in the morning and thinking, that despite having already done it for 500 consecutive days, 'today I'll post a few more anti Boris clips on a football internet forum', just in case there is someone out there who might be unaware of his hatred.

Life must be a hoot!

tbf, our Prime Minister is kind enough to produce a steady stream of material.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What has gone wrong with your life to make you so jealous of people with money?

I'm not. It just seems to me we'd have far less aggravation and problems as well as make far more advances if money was more evenly distributed instead of largely being in the hands of a tiny minority of people who then get to hand large swathes of it down to their kids free of charge while someone who works hard for far less has to give a decent chunk of his away.

This is what true 'levelling up' is, not passing a massive tax hike and care package that will disproportionately affect those on lower incomes

 

[PVA]

Ruining the reputation of 'fuck this racist little country' yes I forgot what a proud patriot you were.

Good night!

Errr yeah, he's a big reason why it is a racist shithole of a country these days.

Some patriot you are, happy to support the man doing his best to wreck the country.

 

[Sick Boy]

How can he return to front line politics?

Maybe it's linked to his Republican greetings videos?

 

[CCFCSteve]

I'm not. It just seems to me we'd have far less aggravation and problems as well as make far more advances if money was more evenly distributed instead of largely being in the hands of a tiny minority of people who then get to hand large swathes of it down to their kids free of charge while someone who works hard for far less has to give a decent chunk of his away.

This is what true 'levelling up' is, not passing a massive tax hike and care package that will disproportionately affect those on lower incomes

I think most probably agree with you but tax from the cash and assets held by the super rich is largely unobtainable. I find it disgusting that billionaires and big multi millionaires aren’t paying more into the pot (neither they nor their kids need it), however, a lot of the alternative proposals discussed actually hurt hard working families, rather than super rich, or are just gesture politics ie don’t actually generate much/anything but people lap them up as they look good

 

[Skybluefaz]

Maybe it's linked to his Republican greetings videos?

Front Line (political party) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or he's joining this lot

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Nearly everyone does benefit compared to the current situation. At the moment there is less money going in the pot and there is no real cap on contributions. Billions more is (supposedly) going to make its way into the system hopefully improving care for all. I appreciate the graph below doesn’t look pretty if you want richer people to pay more but think it does show everyone retains a higher proportion of their assets compared to current system

People earning more do pay more NIC. I think it’s just above 50k the rate is now an extra 3.25% (up from 2%)

View attachment 22803

But that is exactly the point. They've made it so those with less wealth get a tiny benefit so they can sell it as good for everyone but look at the massive difference for those with high wealth. That is not an unfortunate effect of the system, it is deliberately designed in to make it so those with less wealth get the least from it. The graph you posted shows that plain as day and should be setting off massive alarm bells. If a person threw their scraps on the floor for their kids is that good because it's better than them not getting fed at all? Or do you think that person needs to take a serious look at how they feed their kids?

If you took a poorer family that had just scraped enough by to buy a modest house that most of their capital is tied up in then each generation will have to sell that house to pay for the care of their parents and they will have to start from the bottom of the property ladder. Meanwhile a wealthy family with a nice house and cash assets get to keep their houses and each generation can add another property to the empire. So after 5 generations the poorer family are starting with nothing while the other has a portfolio of 5 nice houses. And because the wealthier family are likely to live longer they'll likely have received more value in terms of healthcare.

You can say 'everyone benefits' but it's massively weighted to benefit certain groups over others that will have a cumulative effect over generations and you can't think that is a fair trade off. It's like being grateful to the landlord of the pub for giving you the dregs from the drip tray while he's giving the posh people in the corner a free bottle of his best wine at the same time.

 

[Grendel]

But that is exactly the point. They've made it so those with less wealth get a tiny benefit so they can sell it as good for everyone but look at the massive difference for those with high wealth. That is not an unfortunate effect of the system, it is deliberately designed in to make it so those with less wealth get the least from it. The graph you posted shows that plain as day and should be setting off massive alarm bells. If a person threw their scraps on the floor for their kids is that good because it's better than them not getting fed at all? Or do you think that person needs to take a serious look at how they feed their kids?

If you took a poorer family that had just scraped enough by to buy a modest house that most of their capital is tied up in then each generation will have to sell that house to pay for the care of their parents and they will have to start from the bottom of the property ladder. Meanwhile a wealthy family with a nice house and cash assets get to keep their houses and each generation can add another property to the empire. So after 5 generations the poorer family are starting with nothing while the other has a portfolio of 5 nice houses. And because the wealthier family are likely to live longer they'll likely have received more value in terms of healthcare.

You can say 'everyone benefits' but it's massively weighted to benefit certain groups over others that will have a cumulative effect over generations and you can't think that is a fair trade off. It's like being grateful to the landlord of the pub for giving you the dregs from the drip tray while he's giving the posh people in the corner a free bottle of his best wine at the same time.

This isn’t a Victorian society - work hard and rewards will come

 

[Grendel]

Of course it all goes on child killers and ayslum seekers...

Conveniently forget tax also pays kids in care, the elderly, the disabled, those with mental health needs, their carers, education, police, healthcare...

But at least Tarquin can afford another 10k bottle of vintage champagne instead so all is good with the world.

And don't pretend you don't want morons running the country - you're Boris' biggest fanboy.

The top end taxpayers pay far more into this already - the lazy and indolent also benefit from the hard working elite

 

[JAM See]

The top end taxpayers pay far more into this already - the lazy and indolent also benefit from the hard working elite

Cheers mate.

 

[Ian1779]

This isn’t a Victorian society - work hard and rewards will come

You know that is bollocks. People starting out today never get the opportunity to get on the housing ladder like you did.

You’re so happy to pull up the ladder aren’t you?

 

[Grendel]

Cheers mate.

The top 1% of taxpayers pay 33% of the total tax in the country don’t they? How much more distribution do you think is needed?

 

[Grendel]

You know that is bollocks. People starting out today never get the opportunity to get on the housing ladder like you did.

You’re so happy to pull up the ladder aren’t you?

So I assume you like me want to scrap iht so those get an opportunity to inherit the money needed?

 

[wingy]

Simple answer if you want to pass everything on to your kids re this bill , smoke drink take drugs Go out with a bang oh transfer assets at the opportune time.

 

[JAM See]

The top 1% of taxpayers pay 33% of the total tax in the country don’t they? How much more distribution do you think is needed?

Think you missed my point.

I'm lazy and indolent, but I get by, thanks to you and your hard working ilk.

What a great country to live in, where people like you keep me going.

Many thanks.