This 50p tax rate
Comments
-
gtvlusso wrote:Ultimately - why don't those few take a bit of pride that they are paying more than there share for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of those less fortunate (lets not forget that tax money also goes towards feeding starving kids and so on).
Hence my, 'stop whining and get on with it' stance'. But I guess some people just want to be able to buy more useless sh1t than anyone else......
I'd like to think I'd feel that way if I earned in excess of £150k but I'm not sure... I think circumstances change though, and its not just a matter of buying useless sh1t, I'd think that many would want to give their children the best start in life and all that entails... Also, you get used to a certain standard of living that you want to maintain. So I think its hard to be critical of people just because they're well off. But its also not unreasonable to expect them to contribute according to what they can afford to a society that benefits everyone. Specifically as society has a big role in allowing certain individuals to do very well for themselves. Personally my life would have been quite different if my place at university wasn't paid for by the government, and if I am fortunate enough to end up in the 50% tax bracket then it will be partly because society gave me the opportunity to.0 -
I don't begrudge anyone earning that much money, after all, if you make £300k for your company, it's good value for them to pay you £150k.
But as mentioned above, the fact that 30 rich people who want to pay a bit less tax are able to get their case on the front page of the Telegraph shows how little 'normal' people matter. I'm sure I could find 30 people who supported practically anything, if I write a letter a day for the next ten years, each with the 'demands' of 30 disabled people, children, students, doctors, train drivers, binmen, police officers, secretaries (no more hambones!) or anyone else, they'd be ignored.
30 loaded blokes from the city do it and suddenly it's the most important news story that the Telegraph are aware of.
If you earn that much and you can justify it (ie, you're not nicking it!) then fair play to you, and congratulations, but STFU or GTFO! Around 5 years ago (after being made redundant by people [probably £150k+ earners] who bled companies dry and then ran off with what was left of the cash) my dad was earning under £15k, along with my mum who works part time in education. Their combined income, with three kids to raise and a mortgage to pay would have been well under £25k, anyone whining that £150,000 isn't a lot of money can, quite frankly, swivel. The median income in the UK is under £23k, if you're earning more than 6 times that, and you spend it all on stuff you don't need just to 'keep up' with your pretentious idiots of neighbours then you don't deserve any sympathy at all. Want more money? Don't throw away that perfectly good 46" tv just to replace it with a 50" tv, or take 2 skiing holidays rather than 3, or put up with the horror of driving a 2 year old Audi Q7 rather than replacing it every year, or live in a house with 1 guest bedroom rather than 2.
My heart will be bleeding for you. And when Jocosta and Ralph ask why you can't go to Val d'isere for another 3 months, tell them it was all Bails' fault.0 -
Earn more spend more
I get the whole earn more spend more lifestyle. It is in someways unavoidable. I, personally have attempted to keep my feet grounded and have reduced my standing orders/direct debits as much as I can do despite earning more now than I did when I first started them. As I said to Ms DDD, I wouldn't buy anything new, I'd either replace or improve on the things I have when they need replacing - which is why I still have a 26inch LCD despite being able to by THAT 46inch Samsung LED TV a few times over.
You don't get rich by spending money.
50p tax - leading into inheritance
50p tax seems like it's punishing success. You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you're taxed more than everyone else. Don't seem right to me.
Yes, there are those born into it. We are all products of our parents and have benefited or been hindered in some way by our parents. I'm not going to begrudge someone because their Family was more successful or simply had more than mine and by natural progression the progeny has benefited through inheritance.
In America they'd call it 'hating...'
This is why I think Inheritance Tax is wrong. I don't think outsiders should have a right to dictate what or how much another person inherits regardless of whether they think they do or do not deserve it. Sounds more like jealousy than anything else.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
"You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you're taxed more than everyone else. Don't seem right to me"
So everyone should pay the same amount of tax? Even a flat rate means people who earn more pay more. You're suggesting that sending everyone in the country a bill for £10,000 would be fair.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
This is why I think Inheritance Tax is wrong. I don't think outsiders should have a right to dictate what or how much another person inherits regardless of whether they think they do or do not deserve it. Sounds more like jealousy than anything else.
I was taught at A level that Inheritance tax is a cornerstone of modern British democracy.0 -
bails87 wrote:I don't begrudge anyone earning that much money, after all, if you make £300k for your company, it's good value for them to pay you £150k.
But as mentioned above, the fact that 30 rich people who want to pay a bit less tax are able to get their case on the front page of the Telegraph shows how little 'normal' people matter. I'm sure I could find 30 people who supported practically anything, if I write a letter a day for the next ten years, each with the 'demands' of 30 disabled people, children, students, doctors, train drivers, binmen, police officers, secretaries (no more hambones!) or anyone else, they'd be ignored.
30 loaded blokes from the city do it and suddenly it's the most important news story that the Telegraph are aware of.
If you earn that much and you can justify it (ie, you're not nicking it!) then fair play to you, and congratulations, but STFU or GTFO! Around 5 years ago (after being made redundant by people [probably £150k+ earners] who bled companies dry and then ran off with what was left of the cash) my dad was earning under £15k, along with my mum who works part time in education. Their combined income, with three kids to raise and a mortgage to pay would have been well under £25k, anyone whining that £150,000 isn't a lot of money can, quite frankly, swivel. The median income in the UK is under £23k, if you're earning more than 6 times that, and you spend it all on stuff you don't need just to 'keep up' with your pretentious idiots of neighbours then you don't deserve any sympathy at all. Want more money? Don't throw away that perfectly good 46" tv just to replace it with a 50" tv, or take 2 skiing holidays rather than 3, or put up with the horror of driving a 2 year old Audi Q7 rather than replacing it every year, or live in a house with 1 guest bedroom rather than 2.
My heart will be bleeding for you. And when Jocosta and Ralph ask why you can't go to Val d'isere for another 3 months, tell them it was all Bails' fault.
Calm down dear.
Your position is nothing more than "those rich bastards can must be afford to pay loads of tax, because they don't need all that money in the first place".
There's no "congratulations" or "fair play to you" in there. It's simply mugging successful people. And probably not a dissimilar mindset to most muggers or burglars, for that matter.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:50p tax seems like it's punishing success. You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you're taxed more than everyone else. Don't seem right to me.
I don't particularly disagree but the argument doesn't hold for me.
There's nothing different about the 50%...
People that earn around 150k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
People that earn around 45k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
People that earn around 25k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
People that earn around 6.5k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you still earn more than everyone else.0 -
I don't agree with this. Nobody is born a talented or skillful trader, scientist, barrister, surgeon, leader of industry or whatever... And the reward for getting that salary is still earning far more than the majority despite being taxed.DonDaddyD wrote:You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you're taxed more than everyone else. Don't seem right to me.0 -
Calm down dear.
Your position is nothing more than "those rich bastards can must be afford to pay loads of tax, because they don't need all that money in the first place".
There's no "congratulations" or "fair play to you" in there. It's simply mugging successful people. And probably not a dissimilar mindset to most muggers or burglars, for that matter.
Hahaha, and you're telling me to calm down!
I'm sure they "can must be afford" [sic] to pay lots of tax. Someone on £300k can afford to pay more tax than someone on minimum wage. I don't see how you can contest that. You could invent some more strawmen I suppose.....0 -
Greg66 wrote:
There's no "congratulations" or "fair play to you" in there. It's simply mugging successful people. And probably not a dissimilar mindset to most muggers or burglars, for that matter.
Pretty OT, but we both know it can often not be fair play.
Seems even in the Thatcherite office I work in, they all say the same. "Money makes money".
Suffice to say, we meet a lot of people who we wonder how they earn so much, until we realise the 'connections' they have, due to a largely opulent lifestyle/upbringing.
They have every right to make the most of what they have, but however smart or talented you are, if you're born poor and Pakistani here, I'd suggest you're unlikely to become well off.
Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
As an aside, and mildly related there was an interesting book, The Darwin Economy, by Robert H Frank , which takes a look at free market forces, and examines how good they actually are for society. I won't go into it, since it's not that related to 50% taxes (though he does suggest replacing a tax on personal income with a tax on personal expenditure, i.e. tax on the difference between what you earned and what you saved).0 -
Personally I think inheritance tax is preferable to income tax (what I mean is, I'd always advocate cutting income tax before inheritance tax). I just think it is better to tax unearned income rather than earned income - better to incentivise people to go out and earn some money rather than wait for their inheritance.
And I have a lot of sympathy with trying to avoid intrenched wealth in society. That said, inheritance tax doesnt work very well for this because if you are very wealthy you can afford to give away a load of assets before you die. If you are just moderately wealthy then your house is probably most of what you own and that is risky to give away while you still need it...0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
As far as the 50p rate goes anyone who earns £150k a year and can't think of a way to save paying tax simply doesn't deserve to be on £150k a year. That's a FACT.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
bails87 wrote:"You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you're taxed more than everyone else. Don't seem right to me"
So everyone should pay the same amount of tax? Even a flat rate means people who earn more pay more. You're suggesting that sending everyone in the country a bill for £10,000 would be fair.
There should and will always be a threshold so that people living in this Country should be able to live to a minimum standard. What that minimum standard should be is for a greater mind than mine to decide. But yes it's been well reported that I'm an advocate for a flat tax rate.
Why should someone earning more have to pay a greater percentage of their salary in taxes than someone earning less?I was taught at A level that Inheritance tax is a cornerstone of modern British democracy.
Not everything 'British' I inherently agree with.
+1There's no "congratulations" or "fair play to you" in there. It's simply mugging successful people. And probably not a dissimilar mindset to most muggers or burglars, for that matter.I don't particularly disagree but the argument doesn't hold for me.
There's nothing different about the 50%...
People that earn around 150k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
People that earn around 45k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
People that earn around 25k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
People that earn around 6.5k get taxed more than everyone below that level.
You're born talented, lucky, skillful, whatever and you have the drive to get to that salary. And for your reward you still earn more than everyone else.
Yes but why must you pay a larger percentage of tax?Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
My back teeth, what is the point of aspiring and building a legacy for your children if it's taxed to oblivion. Where is the progression of social mobility in that design? If I became a millionaire and left that to my kids then my family (family name) would have progressed up the social (class) ladder. Why deny my progeny of this?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.0 -
Because you can.DonDaddyD wrote:Yes but why must you pay a larger percentage of tax?
Take away the 50% bracket and the same argument is there for 40% and 22% below it. Whether 50% at £150k is the correct % I don't have the stats to argue.
In theory I agree with the idea of the wealthy paying a higher percentage at the top end of their salaries.
In practice it doesn't really sound like it'll raise much anyway. It's more a token political exercise to appease the current anti banker sentiment rather than any nuanced tweaking of policy.0 -
It was only an A level though, you'd have got points for arguing either wayRick Chasey wrote:
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
0 -
dhope wrote:
It was only an A level though, you'd have got points for arguing either wayRick Chasey wrote:
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
*earnest literal response alert* not really. You get told what issues are debatable and what are 'facts' you should include. This was assumed, and was not debatable :P0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous. Furthermore Britain was built on aristocracy (Country still has a Monarchy for cripes sake) which shifted to Government riches (which is arguably a form of aristocracy - it's no fluke that most of the current incumbents all went to the same school) and inheritance tax is a way of maintaining that. If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax. Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous. Furthermore Britain was built on aristocracy (Country still has a Monarchy for cripes sake) which shifted to Government riches (which is arguably a form of aristocracy - it's no fluke that most of the current incumbents all went to the same school) and inheritance tax is a way of maintaining that. If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax. Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.
The point of inheritance tax is simple. Families with enormous wealth usually exert a lot of power. The point of the inheritance tax is to reduce the cyclical "money makes money" privilege cycle which works against the notion of equal opportunities. That was the reason, as far as I am aware, that it was introduced. It made the self-made 'middle classes' who where then the majority of the electorate much happier.
As an aside, it also provides more of an incentive for offspring of wealthy earners to pull their finger out and be economically productive themselves.
A progressive tax is similar in aim. Society is inherently not fair. That's a given. The question is, who bares the burden of that lack of fairness?
The aim of a progressive tax system is to put the burden onto those who are most comfortable, and who can most afford it. A flat tax rate hurts the poorer more, for pretty obvious reasons. Given that they already have poorer opportunities, that hardly seems preferable for the society as a whole.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous. Furthermore Britain was built on aristocracy (Country still has a Monarchy for cripes sake) which shifted to Government riches (which is arguably a form of aristocracy - it's no fluke that most of the current incumbents all went to the same school) and inheritance tax is a way of maintaining that. If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax. Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.
I'm not sure they 'hardly feel it'. One of the reasons why we have so many stately homes open to the public is that deals were struck with what is now HMRC to avoid huge inheritance tax bills. Also, it's perfectly possible to be part of the aristocracy and broke.
As regards TWH's point: well a degree of social engineering does affect what is taxed and what isn't, even when there is a Tory government (e.g. tax breaks for certain industries to pick something slightly less emotive). That's not to say that they don't also need to make the sums work, and will only introduce what they think people will broadly accept.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Why is it ludicrous? "Stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy" just means working against things like pay inequality and tax avoidance. Surely raising the average income and improving public services through better funding is for the greater good?DonDaddyD wrote:Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous.DonDaddyD wrote:If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax.Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.
Isn't the threshold for inheritance something like £325,000? This only affects the wealthy minority, surely...0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
My back teeth, what is the point of aspiring and building a legacy for your children if it's taxed to oblivion. Where is the progression of social mobility in that design? If I became a millionaire and left that to my kids then my family (family name) would have progressed up the social (class) ladder. Why deny my progeny of this?
....because you would not have the opportunity to become a millionaire in the first place if there were no mechanism for eroding the family-owned assets of the truly rich and powerful.
Regardless of whether by accident or design, one of the key effects of inheritance tax is the breakup of huge family estates like the one owned by the Duke of Westminster. And the money has to come from somewhere - so, DDD, how much extra income tax are you prepared to pay to allow the Duke of Westminster to pass your rented home intact onto his children?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
That wasn't what I was taught during my "history and formation of modern British politics & democracy" course.TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Inheritance tax exists to stop a wealthy minority becoming too entrenched and powerful.
It's for the greater good.
Nonsense. Inheritance Tax exists because at some point some government decided that inheritance was measurable and revenue could be raised by taxing it. Socially engineering has flip all to do with it. Like all taxes (including the 50p rate) the calculation is simply how much do we need to raise and what can we get away with taxing.
Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous. Furthermore Britain was built on aristocracy (Country still has a Monarchy for cripes sake) which shifted to Government riches (which is arguably a form of aristocracy - it's no fluke that most of the current incumbents all went to the same school) and inheritance tax is a way of maintaining that. If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax. Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.
That's just not true. You should get out more! Specifically, you should get out to see some of the excellent stately homes owned and managed by the national trust. Or go and see some of the art exhibitions containing works which can only be on display because of the inheritance-tax enforced break-up of the aristocratic estates which owned them.
Inheritance tax hurts people with little not at all. It starts to smart a bit for the middle classes (albeit mostly those who have 'worked' hard for their success by the simple expediency of being able to raise a mortgage and buy a house), but it's truly crippling for the aristocracy - who would still be governing the country were it not for the fact that their wealth and the influence which goes with it has been steadily eroded.0 -
Looking at it another way, why should people get the unearned untaxed benefit of large amounts of income that their parents amassed - the parents earned it, not them. Generally, by the time you pop your clogs, any children will be in their 50s or 60s and should by then be standing on their own two feet.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Why is it ludicrous? "Stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy" just means working against things like pay inequality and tax avoidance. Surely raising the average income and improving public services through better funding is for the greater good?DonDaddyD wrote:Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous.DonDaddyD wrote:If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax.Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.
Isn't the threshold for inheritance something like £325,000? This only affects the wealthy minority, surely...
I'm not sure about 'the wealthy minority', that's not far above the average price of a house which, after tax and when split between children, isn't exactly a large amount. You don't have to be hugely wealthy to have paid off a mortgage by the time you die.0 -
Indeed. It's about the current valuation of my FTB flat...dhope wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Why is it ludicrous? "Stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy" just means working against things like pay inequality and tax avoidance. Surely raising the average income and improving public services through better funding is for the greater good?DonDaddyD wrote:Stating the name of the course doesn't detract from TWH's excellent point. There is no greater good in stopping the wealthy minority from becoming more wealthy. In a capitalist society the sheer notion is ludicrous.DonDaddyD wrote:If anything Inheritance tax hurts people with less, people like me where my Estate in it's entirety may aid my children but the benefits of my Estate is shrunk by this tax.Those truly in the wealthy minority will barely feel it.
Isn't the threshold for inheritance something like £325,000? This only affects the wealthy minority, surely...
I'm not sure about 'the wealthy minority', that's not far above the average price of a house which, after tax and when split between children, isn't exactly a large amount. You don't have to be hugely wealthy to have paid off a mortgage by the time you die.0 -
Thats a fair point, but the average house price at the moment is about £166k (source). £325k is almost double that.dhope wrote:I'm not sure about 'the wealthy minority', that's not far above the average price of a house which, after tax and when split between children, isn't exactly a large amount. You don't have to be hugely wealthy to have paid off a mortgage by the time you die.0 -
Indeed, I don't think the rest of the country would wear it if inheritance tax had a higher threshold in London, just because property prices were more expensive (nor should they).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Thats a fair point, but the average house price at the moment is about £166k (source). £325k is almost double that.dhope wrote:I'm not sure about 'the wealthy minority', that's not far above the average price of a house which, after tax and when split between children, isn't exactly a large amount. You don't have to be hugely wealthy to have paid off a mortgage by the time you die.
Not only that, but nil-rate estate tax allowances are transferrable between spouses. So if you're married, as a couple you're able to pass on £650K before your children have to pay any tax. And even then it's not as if the government take it all - it's 40% on the amount over the threshold.
In 2008/2009, 94% of estates did not end up paying tax: the irony of this particular tax is that most of the people who oppose it so vociferously won't actually end up paying it. But funnily enough the same logic doesn't apply to the 50% tax band. I wonder why not.0 -
rjsterry wrote:Looking at it another way, why should people get the unearned untaxed benefit of large amounts of income that their parents amassed - the parents earned it, not them. Generally, by the time you pop your clogs, any children will be in their 50s or 60s and should by then be standing on their own two feet.
I can't think of a more justifiable reason other than entitlement-through-genetics.
(Assuming the parents want to leave it to said child).
I think the Government and by extension the public has less right to what I've amassed than my children.
Point of principle that.Rick Chasey wrote:The point of inheritance tax is simple. Families with enormous wealth usually exert a lot of power. The point of the inheritance tax is to reduce the cyclical "money makes money" privilege cycle which works against the notion of equal opportunities. That was the reason, as far as I am aware, that it was introduced. It made the self-made 'middle classes' who where then the majority of the electorate much happier.
As an aside, it also provides more of an incentive for offspring of wealthy earners to pull their finger out and be economically productive themselves.
A progressive tax is similar in aim. Society is inherently not fair. That's a given. The question is, who bares the burden of that lack of fairness?
The aim of a progressive tax system is to put the burden onto those who are most comfortable, and who can most afford it. A flat tax rate hurts the poorer more, for pretty obvious reasons. Given that they already have poorer opportunities, that hardly seems preferable for the society as a whole.
While I can accept that this may be the practice. From the above post onwards I disagree with everything written as a principle and set of values.
Inheritance Tax
If I had already paid tax or didn't have to pay tax on it, a portion, percentage or the entirety of it in life. I don't see why my successors should have to in death.
What I have in life is mine to give. it shouldn't be yours (Government) to take.
I'm gonna sit with the Tory back - benches lot. Tis my "hug a Tory day"
Progressive Tax
The argument I often hear is "why should I pay the same amount of tax as someone who earns more than me". Well why should a rich person pay more simply because they (i) can and (ii) have more. That just sounds like jealousy and greed to me.
The very notion breeds a contempt towards success and a sense of entitlement if you have a lack of. Earn more pay more tax and get less (no) Government support. Don't work, earn less and be subsidised to the eyeballs.
Flat tax doesn't benefit the poor, no, it doesn't benefit the rich either. It means that from a point of taxation everyone shoulders an equal burden of contributing to society.
IMOFood Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0
