Join for free
Reply
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > Last »
Erinaceous
Senior Member
Erinaceous is offline
East Anglia
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 302
Erinaceous is male  Erinaceous has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
28-08-2012, 09:00 AM
1

Don't you just love Word-smiths!

Take death taxes. No longer called what they are. Instead they have for some time been called “Inheritance Tax” as if when people inherit something that has already been taxed they should pay tax on it all over again.

Although taxing the dead doesn't cut in 'till the estate value hits £325,000, when it does the rate of tax is a staggering 40%.

IN fact the whole thing is complicated by spousal claims and by what is in the estate. and all sorts of other problems arise when properties are be they real estate or business holdings such as shares are involved when no end of things can become exposed to a plethora of other taxes.

Now £325,000 may seem a hell of a lot of money but with the value of property today many people are surprised at just what the house they live in is valued at, especially in or near major cities.

For example taking our part of the world, Norwich, even a three bed bungalow and nothing at all pretentious will be around £250,000 - while a “nothing special” 3 bed terraced house in The City is well over the death tax limit in itself.

|So if you've lived in a place for a number of years you may well have an asset in your estate that pushes what the government will take from you before you can bequeath what is YOURS and what was paid for out of taxed income in the first place to whoever you want to give it to.


The immoral to this item?

Death tax. It should be stopped and stopped NOW.



The moral to this item?

Have where you live valued, and take professional advice on how to mitigate the tax that you will have to pay after you've snuffed it while you still can.
Reply With Quote
Aerolor's Avatar
Aerolor
Chatterbox
Aerolor is offline
UK
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,909
Aerolor is female  Aerolor has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
30-08-2012, 09:17 AM
2

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

I noticed in another thread that you would like to see a tax put on children being born Erinaceous.
Could you please illustrate why you think such a tax on people having children would be OK and inheritance tax not OK and what adva tage it would confer to future generations? An inheritance is usually something that the beneficiary has not earned and has paid no tax on, so why should it be tax free. (To simply state it has been taxed already by another would not hold water with me).
Reply With Quote
Erinaceous
Senior Member
Erinaceous is offline
East Anglia
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 302
Erinaceous is male  Erinaceous has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
30-08-2012, 10:14 AM
3

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

Good questions, here's my thinking.

Firstly death taxes and let's use myself to illustrate the issue.

When I eventually leave This Mortal Coil the total value of my estate will be over the starting rate for Death Tax. But what I have I have has been earned and subject to tax as applicable.

In other words what I have is mine and mine alone, it has been taxed during the period that I have accumulated it, and so it is mine to dispose of as I see fit.

My son will be my beneficiary and so he will receive a sum of money, any Real Estate that I had, and anything else that is de-facto free of all duties as I have already paid them.

The fact that it is unearned wealth really should not make one iota of difference as far as his taxes are concerned, just as a Lottery win is unearned wealth and so not subject to tax because taxes have already been paid, in the case of the National Lottery, as part of the stake money..

The whole disgraceful aspect of the Death Tax is that it's a Socialist / Left Wing thing about creaming off a sizeable portion of the wealth of individuals after they are no longer in a position to do anything about it and THAT IS WRONG.


Secondly concerning the taxation of kids.

When a child is born it is the start of a lifetime of load on the infrastructure and Social Services of the country. I can just about see the justice in child “benefit” as a replacement for income tax child allowances.

But when the number of kids a couple have exceeds two (plus a bit for mortality etc.) then the parents should be taxed for any further kids to help offset the additional burden they will be in the future.

It would also considerably demotivate the “Babyfactories” who delight in churning out kids in order to get more state hand-outs ----- and they DO exist AND in large and growing numbers.

So a win – win – win scenario.

A Cut back in taxpayers money, an income to the treasury from those selfish people who have more than a couple of kids and a reduction in the population growth so a reduction in the amount of infrastructure that will be needed in the future.
Reply With Quote
Aerolor's Avatar
Aerolor
Chatterbox
Aerolor is offline
UK
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,909
Aerolor is female  Aerolor has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
30-08-2012, 11:22 AM
4

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

Ah but! Ah but! Ah but! - the children born today are future tax-payers and will provide the pensions, social security for their elders in due course. I think they are a wothwhile investment for many reasons and it is wrong to think of the future generation as a liability. Although I believe adjustments need to be made about how much is paid in tax and benefits, if not enough children are born to become tax payers - what then?
Where I think the system is basically flawed is that we have not paid in advance for the benefits we currently receive. If, at its inception, the health and social security system had been saved for in advance of being implemented, (i.e. only brought in when there was funding saved and invested for it) I don't think we would have as many problems as we have today.

I've got to go out for a while, so I may come back to this thread later.
Reply With Quote
Erinaceous
Senior Member
Erinaceous is offline
East Anglia
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 302
Erinaceous is male  Erinaceous has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
30-08-2012, 12:16 PM
5

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

The “future tax payer” argument doesn't stack, here's why.

If the Gross Domestic Product of a country is taken as THE indicator of the economic wealth of a nation then a VERY misleading status emerges and in the case of GB one that paints a rosy picture even during mild recession such as now.

In crude and slightly simplistic terms to establish the real economic status of a nation firstly the overall balance of trade must be taken (imports vs. exports) then the fixed financial costs and obligations, and then the controllable expenditure.

Now, given that we have an actual population that produces very little that is export earning, and I include so called Invisibles such as banking, insurance, E-Commerce and the like, at the same time a very great deal must be imported.

Essentials as well as “nice to have's” and luxury items, and very much more in monetary terms than is exported.

Imported but that can't be paid for by our export earnings and it means that GB is continuing to go down the pan from an economic aspect apart from everything else because we have to continue to borrow more and more just to stand still.

NOW --- Because the more people the greater the import bill relative to export earnings, and there's no way that they're going to improve in real terms, in fact just the opposite, so increasing the population is a very BAD idea.

Far from any benefits of increased tax, and that presumes that there will be work available paying a wage that doesn't need to be brought to a living wage by “benefits”, work that results in export earnings to pay the import bills and pay off the huge debt that GB already carries, there will be a net LOSS after tax receipts made MUCH worse because of the additional infrastructure of all types to provide for an increased population.

Brown either didn't, couldn't, wouldn't (or all three) see that expanding the GDP of GB by importing immigrants to swell population numbers although keeping government borrowing costs low because of an increasing GDP the knock on was the ramping up of GB treasury and private debt resulting in a GROSS national debt that is ruinous. Quite literally.

So today doing anything to encourage birth rates is likewise a recipe for disaster. And for the same reason.

In GB one person over their lifetime generates a cost to GB in the global market far beyond their contribution to it.

It's that simple.
Reply With Quote
Aerolor's Avatar
Aerolor
Chatterbox
Aerolor is offline
UK
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,909
Aerolor is female  Aerolor has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
30-08-2012, 07:00 PM
6

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

I also don't think we need to be increasing our population Erinaceous and that was not what I was meaning at all. If there was a tax on more than two children, then I really don't think it would attract as much revenue as inheritance (or death) duties currently do. You can't get "blood out of a stone" and I think education and the hope of an independent future has to be the way to go. Yes there are folks who have more children who they can afford - but these people are not likely to pay much tax or be able to afford a tax on their children. So what would you recommend - compulsory sterilisation or strangling at birth.
There are many people who have children and are not a burden on society. We have had two children and I don't think we have taken much out of the "communal pot". In fact, I think if the figures were done we have likely put back in more than we have taken out. My children are now tax payers and are certainly no burden on the state - they are paying their way and contributing like anyone else who is able to does. I think I said before your posts often paint a very black picture on many issues and I am beginning to think that much of it has an agenda which is racist in orientation.
Reply With Quote
Barry's Avatar
Barry
Chatterbox
Barry is offline
North Notts
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,381
Barry is male  Barry has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
30-08-2012, 07:41 PM
7

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

I must say Rena that you are the only person that I have ever known to agree with inheritance tax. I'm afraid I'm with Erinaceous on that point, the money has already been taxed several times so the government can get their thieving hands off it, it will be spent by the inheritor soon enough which will then both provide a boost to the economy and attract VAT anyway.

Regarding population growth, I have argued before that all nations will have to address this problem before too long, it is not only this country but we as a race are bleeding the planet dry, and we cannot continue ad infinitum to support population growing exponentially, so your question as to strangulation at birth or sterilisation may not turn out to be facetious after all...
Reply With Quote
Uncle Joe's Avatar
Uncle Joe
Chatterbox
Uncle Joe is offline
Brighton UK
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,193
Uncle Joe is male  Uncle Joe has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
31-08-2012, 08:29 AM
8

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

Put very basically, the 'haves' want to keep what they have without taxation, while allowing the 'have nots' to pay the taxes that the 'haves' should have paid. I seem to recall that we've been here before when a Certain King John was on the throne and look what happened to HIM!!!

Cameron dare not try advocating such a policy as there would be such an outcry from the masses (the Proletariat) that would likely sweep him and the Tories from power for generations to come.
Reply With Quote
Barry's Avatar
Barry
Chatterbox
Barry is offline
North Notts
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,381
Barry is male  Barry has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
31-08-2012, 09:30 AM
9

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

Originally Posted by Uncle Joe ->
Put very basically, the 'haves' want to keep what they have without taxation, while allowing the 'have nots' to pay the taxes that the 'haves' should have paid.
Why doesn't it surprise me that you think that all the "Haves" have not paid any tax. In reality the people that you may consider as "haves" have worked hard and paid tax all of their lives and some even continue to do so. I agree that there are a few "super rich" who manage to avoid taxes and that should be resolved, but the vast majority have been taxed on their labours and should owe the "have nots" nothing more. They have paid their dues already and should be able to enjoy or distribute their accrued wealth as they see fit.
Reply With Quote
Erinaceous
Senior Member
Erinaceous is offline
East Anglia
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 302
Erinaceous is male  Erinaceous has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
31-08-2012, 09:40 AM
10

Re: Don't you just love Word-smiths!

Originally Posted by Aerolor ->
I also don't think we need to be increasing our population Erinaceous and that was not what I was meaning at all. If there was a tax on more than two children, then I really don't think it would attract as much revenue as inheritance (or death) duties currently do. You can't get "blood out of a stone" and I think education and the hope of an independent future has to be the way to go. Yes there are folks who have more children who they can afford - but these people are not likely to pay much tax or be able to afford a tax on their children. So what would you recommend - compulsory sterilisation or strangling at birth.
There are many people who have children and are not a burden on society. We have had two children and I don't think we have taken much out of the "communal pot". In fact, I think if the figures were done we have likely put back in more than we have taken out. My children are now tax payers and are certainly no burden on the state - they are paying their way and contributing like anyone else who is able to does. I think I said before your posts often paint a very black picture on many issues and I am beginning to think that much of it has an agenda which is racist in orientation.
Racist?

That has to be an extension to “Godwin's Law”!

As to any racist factor, what I WILL say is that the importation of people from other societies has resulted in the import of differing values and different objectives, one being to breed prolifically. Especially in the case where their religion demands this of them. That isn't a racist view, that's simply dealing with a fact.

But let's just consider being in work as being the same as being of no cost to the country.

If that work provides an output that is export earning to a greater extent than the gross import that the individual costs, then a person doing that work can be said to be paying their way.

If not ---- then in GB today they are not.

I recognise that infrastructure is needed to support the real earners, but the present cost of maintaining that infrastructure far exceeds the added value it provides to the REAL earners in GB.

Then there are the huge costs of extending our infrastructure in the future to cater for population explosions, people who have a gross COST to GB in terms of imports and loans to support an unsustainable standard of living (let alone sending money “home” as so many do) and do not add VALUE in the GB export market

Would I expect taxing kids on the basis that more than two point something to replace what is stolen by the GB Death Tax? No. But then – why should it?

Instead of continuing to borrow the ingredients for the national cake it's time to reduce the size of the cake. To reduce taxation and to dramatically reduce what is provided by the state.

In short, to live within our means.

The problem is that just doing that is insufficient.

Because of the sinfully profligate waste of borrowed money during the Blair and Brown years, on top of accrued debt, mostly accrued by Labour governments in the past, on top of the failure to make the cuts in government spending by the Coalition that future generations will be stuck with huge and at present ever increasing repayments.

The corollary to that is that we must face up to a period of time living BENEATH our means while these loans get repaid.

That is not the “Elephant in the Dining Room”, that is the Huge Heard of Woolly Mammoths in the Whole House” that no one in Westminster or elsewhere is willing to talk about.

So sorry, just because someone is in work and paying taxes does NOT mean they are paying their way unless they are producing goods or services for export that earns more than the standing charge they are on the Exchequer.

But putting all that aside, the Death Tax on already taxed estates is WRONG.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > Last »

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.