This 50p tax rate

gtvlusso

Since when did money care about scruples or morality........

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

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 this post onwards I disagree with it 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 get from the poor 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.

Those most able to pay tax should contribute more to it.
'The measure of a civilisation is how it treats its weakest members'. In order to accommodate the most vulnerable it is necessary to ask more of the most comfortable. As a by-product we end up giving some scroungers an easy ride and some wealthy people feel hard done by. That's a price worth paying.
Over a certain amount then higher taxes will stifle the incentive to earn more for some. For those people I'd argue they lucked into that position anyway. For those who achievement is a goal in and of itself then I don't think they'll sit back and say, "Well, it's just not worth trying anymore".

tailwindhome

DDD

I'm simplifying this for the purposes of not being bothered going back to check the details or the facts for that matter.

A couple of years ago BA for in a bit of bother.

Willie Walsh the boss had the idea that all employees could help the company by giving up a months salary (an 8% pay cut). He lead by example and gave up a month.

Now here's the question is his 8% equal to a baggage handlers 8%

Which 8% has the biggest impact?

W1

rhext wrote:

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.

You appear to presume that that is by default a good thing. Why?

W1

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

It's only yours when you're living...

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

It's only yours when you're living...

So I decide what happens to it.

Why should the government get it over and above my wishes?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's only yours when you're living...

It's also mine to give away when I die. My assets are not on loan to me from the State during my lifetime.

Soviet Union, etc. etc.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

Why should the government get any money you earn in that case? What's so special about dying?

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's only yours when you're living...

It's also mine to give away when I die. My assets are not on loan to me from the State during my lifetime.

Soviet Union, etc. etc.

Its pretty easy to give away your assets before your die so that the government doesn't take 40% of them... Its just another tax to avoid.

jamesco

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

It's only "yours" because society grants you property rights and will act to defend them. If it wasn't for society, then you'd have to defend whatever you could, and if that sounds okay then Mogadishu might just be the place for you! As they say, taxes are the price we pay for civilisation.

W1 wrote:

rhext wrote:

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.

You appear to presume that that is by default a good thing. Why?

It's Pareto efficient.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

I agree with your stance on flat tax, but I think the above (can be) wrong.

If you increase personal allowances, whilst introducing a higher (than the current bottom) but lower (than the current top) % of income tax, it may be possible to make almost everyone pay less tax - the savings come from decreased collection costs and decreased avoidance.

So (say) a £12,000 personal allowance with a 25% flat tax (for example).

Simple, cost effective, cheap to administer and often not worth complex "avoidance" schemes.

dhope

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

It's only yours when you're living...

So I decide what happens to it.

Why should the government get it over and above my wishes?

Same reason they get to take it before it's reached your pockets in the first place. Them's the breaks.
Tax when you earn it, both from employer and employee, tax when you spend it, tax if you save it, tax when you die and don't spend it.

The implementation is horrible, though it's hardly the most simple problem given the number of ways of receiving a salary and the number of places to spend it.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's only yours when you're living...

It's also mine to give away when I die. My assets are not on loan to me from the State during my lifetime.

Soviet Union, etc. etc.

So the 125yr old inheritance tax now makes the UK like the Soviet Union?

Hang on a minute here.

By this logic, as RJSterry says, you'd never want to pay any tax? What is so special about dying?

(as an aside, ever thought about who owns your body once you die?)

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

Why should the government get any money you earn in that case? What's so special about dying?

One could argue that during your lifetime the government provides you with the tools/infrastructure necessary for you to earn a living - transport, roads, hospitals, law and order, peacetime. All of which together justifies a "take" from the benefits you accrue from living and working in such a nice, productive place.

IHT is just an opportunistic grab. There are precious few overheads to dying, and fewer still that the Govt provides. As for breaking up acrrued inter generational wealth and power, to my mind that argument ceases to fly once you get down to a level where IHT is applied to estates that are far too small to create such wealth/power.

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

By this logic, as RJSterry says, you'd never want to pay any tax?

That's the rub.

I'd like to pay no tax. That would be a good thing - everything I earn I keep - that would be good.

However I recognise that I need and infratsructure in which to live so I'll pitch in to do my bit.

There will be a balance where I think what i get = what I give....

On the other end of the spectrum

I expect to work communally and my efforts are collectively rewarded - the "state" owns everything, "property is theft" after all.

So you either work up from the bottom of no tax or work down from the top of all tax.

the equation of "what i get >= what I give" is key.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

(as an aside, ever thought about who owns your body once you die?)

Yes.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's only yours when you're living...

It's also mine to give away when I die. My assets are not on loan to me from the State during my lifetime.

Soviet Union, etc. etc.

Its pretty easy to give away your assets before your die so that the government doesn't take 40% of them... Its just another tax to avoid.

But it's quite diffcult to give them all away and yet retain sufficient means to live off. And if you don't trust your offspring not to shove you in an old folks' home on the first occasion you fail a memory test, giving away your home can be very difficult.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

One could argue that during your lifetime the government provides you with the tools/infrastructure necessary for you to earn a living - transport, roads, hospitals, law and order, peacetime. All of which together justifies a "take" from the benefits you accrue from living and working in such a nice, productive place.
.

I guess this is where the assumptions are.

You say governments run infrastructure etc which 'justifies' them to 'take'.

That's not how I see it. They basically commandeer a part of your income and spend it on stuff the individual can't be trusted to spend on > for the greater good. People can't be trusted to privately spend enough on communal stuff like bin collection, roads, healthcare etc, so the gov't, does for you. You vote on how they do that.

It's that way round. You make out gov'ts get kicks out of 'taking' money, and finding ways to 'justify' it. It's more they want to provide services that no-one of their own free will will pay for, despite that they are beneficial to everyone.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

You say governments run infrastructure etc which 'justifies' them to 'take'.

That's not how I see it. They basically commandeer a part of your income and spend it on stuff the individual can't be trusted to spend on > for the greater good. People can't be trusted to privately spend enough on communal stuff like bin collection, roads, healthcare etc, so the gov't, does for you. You vote on how they do that.

It's that way round. You make out gov'ts get kicks out of 'taking' money, and finding ways to 'justify' it. It's more they want to provide services that no-one of their own free will will pay for, despite that they are beneficial to everyone.

That's the basic left vs right wing dichotomy, isn't it? Left says Govt = good; individual = bad; individual can't be trusted to spend their money properly so Govt takes it and spends it for them.

Right says Left says Govt = bad; individual = good; individual can be trusted to spend their money properly so Govt takes as little as possible.

Small wonder we don't agree.

As for that bit in bold, if you've ever had any experience of how a public authority manages its spending so as to maintain the level of its grant from Central Govt, you might not be quite so sure about what you've said.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

As for that bit in bold, if you've ever had any experience of how a public authority manages its spending so as to maintain the level of its grant from Central Govt, you might not be quite so sure about what you've said.

I worked for the local council on their Local Transport Plan which was their case for their budget for the next 4 years.

As far as I see it, like people - if you make parts of government compete with one another and you'll get selfish behaviour. Hence the 'take' attitude. Rather like people's attitude to paying as little tax as possible.

Before you think I'm some Communist - I'm not. I'm in favour of a mixed economy. Fundamentally free market, but with much less laissez faire economic governance. Finance? Properly regulate it. Widening social gap, with increasing poverty, despite growing GDP? If people can't be trusted to rectify that, intervene.

That way, you find a balance between the powerful and productive incentives of free market competition, but (hopefully) tempering the drawbacks.

DonDaddyD

Tony Blair was the best Prime Minister ever.

I'm also liking John Major's sudden resurgence; what he has to say on Europe especially Greece being allowed to default makes a lot of sense. He all but predicted this current scenario (potential Euro breakup/reshuffle). Makes me regret being too young to truly remember his time in Government to compare the present lot. But I've got a new found respect for the guy.

I also like the tone of his voice. Party leaders should really work on this.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Before you think I'm some Communist - I'm not.

Yeah yeah yeah. Tell that to Sen McCarthy. :twisted:

I don't think you're a Commie. I do have you marked down at the left end of the spectrum, though, which is (I suspect) nothing more than the opposite of what you have me down as.

We're bound to be influenced by our upbringings. If my parents had been in the same boat as Bails87's, I may well have different views of life. As it is though I had a (fairly) strong work/reward ethic drummed into me (and managed to avoid hardship).

This place would be sh!t if we all agreed with each other.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's only yours when you're living...

It's also mine to give away when I die. My assets are not on loan to me from the State during my lifetime.

Soviet Union, etc. etc.

Its pretty easy to give away your assets before your die so that the government doesn't take 40% of them... Its just another tax to avoid.

If you get the chance.

It's a hateful tax that can cause untold additional misery at times of great distress.

DonDaddyD

I was raised to vote Labour...

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tony Blair was the best Prime Minister ever. .

Now that's just trolling

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was raised to vote Labour...

You were raised right. Don't let your parents down.



BTW loving how easy it is to multiple quote on this new improved forum

rick_chasey

Nah it's good Greg.

I use this forum to gage what the average right-of-centre guy thinks, and to try out the odd argument I dream up sitting on the sh!tter.

Outside of the Thatcherite office (where most people want to abolish tax totally and dream of moving to Switzerland only to pay less tax), I socialise with people who are by-and-large either similar to me, apathetic, or don't like to argue politics...

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was raised to vote Labour...

Of course you were, young Anakin...

Apart from that aberration about Tony Blair, your path to the Dark Side is proceeding exactly as I have planned...

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

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.

Looking at that another way, why should the government get it? If it's mine, surely I have the right to decide what happens to it when I die?

Why should the government get any money you earn in that case? What's so special about dying?

I know that it's not the only "double tax" example, but it's a pretty stark one.

On dying, you've made no money, you've spent no money, you've actually done very little per se compared to the "justification" of other taxes (income/capital gains/VAT) - and then the state wants to help themsleves to nearly half. Frankly I'd rather that went to the people for whom I had spent my life working, earning (and paying tax) for, not for the government to waste.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was raised to vote Labour...

Of course you were, young Anakin...

Apart from that aberration about Tony Blair, your path to the Dark Side is proceeding exactly as I have planned...

He needs to sort out a facemask though