Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1302303305307308334

Posts

  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Dont worry, though, if it ever does happen I will find a way around it.

    Not really in the spirit of the tax, is it?
    It is, given that the current version IHT has been effectively voluntary with a bit of sensible planning and absent unexpected deaths.

    It is also a very natural reaction to an onerous tax.

    Not sure there is such a thing as a spirit of a tax, is there? Just a question of how well drafted the rules are.

    If you accept the basic principle that unearned income should be taxed as well as earned income then we're just debating particular thresholds and rates. Personally I think they'd be better off not distinguishing between types of income and adjusting the rates accordingly.
    I don't accept that. Neither do successive governments or HMRC, who give thresholds for many things including income tax, capital gains etc below which they are not taxed. Or exempt certain types of income altogether, e.g. dividend income for companies.

    And let's not forget that lifetime gifts will generally come out of income that has already been taxed.

    And you're still ignoring the human factor of wanting to do the best for your kids. If you don't want to do that, up to you but it won't stop me.

    As for spirit of a tax, true but doesn't change the point that it is easily avoidable and will be avoided as it won't be seen as reasonable by many.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Dont worry, though, if it ever does happen I will find a way around it.

    Not really in the spirit of the tax, is it?
    It is, given that the current version IHT has been effectively voluntary with a bit of sensible planning and absent unexpected deaths.

    It is also a very natural reaction to an onerous tax.

    Not sure there is such a thing as a spirit of a tax, is there? Just a question of how well drafted the rules are.

    If you accept the basic principle that unearned income should be taxed as well as earned income then we're just debating particular thresholds and rates. Personally I think they'd be better off not distinguishing between types of income and adjusting the rates accordingly.
    I don't accept that. Neither do successive governments or HMRC, who give thresholds for many things including income tax, capital gains etc below which they are not taxed. Or exempt certain types of income altogether, e.g. dividend income for companies.
    Pretty sure that's only up to £2K and then it's taxed. My point was most types of personal income is taxed in some circumstances and above certain thresholds. It's just a question of what levels those exemptions and thresholds are set at. I completely agree that having a threshold above which a high rate kicks in from nothing is going to encourage avoidance.
    And let's not forget that lifetime gifts will generally come out of income that has already been taxed.
    Lots of things get taxed twice.
    And you're still ignoring the human factor of wanting to do the best for your kids. If you don't want to do that, up to you but it won't stop me.
    I'm not ignoring it; I just don't see how taxing gifts stops you giving them. "Ah well I was going to give you the deposit towards your first house but since HMRC will take X% I'm not going to bother"
    As for spirit of a tax, true but doesn't change the point that it is easily avoidable and will be avoided as it won't be seen as reasonable by many.
    If IHT was charged at, say, 5% but had a much lower threshold, people wouldn't get so upset about it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,334
    If I pay someone to paint my house, I am paying them out of my taxed income, and then they are taxed on that money that I have given them. Is that the same money being taxed twice?
    and then the next thing you know
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,334
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Dont worry, though, if it ever does happen I will find a way around it.

    Not really in the spirit of the tax, is it?
    It is, given that the current version IHT has been effectively voluntary with a bit of sensible planning and absent unexpected deaths.

    It is also a very natural reaction to an onerous tax.

    Isn't that the exact reason why this tax would be proposed?
    and then the next thing you know
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,794 Lives Here
    If I pay someone to paint my house, I am paying them out of my taxed income, and then they are taxed on that money that I have given them. Is that the same money being taxed twice?

    No.
  • LagrangeLagrange Posts: 652
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    As for spirit of a tax, true but doesn't change the point that it is easily avoidable and will be avoided as it won't be seen as reasonable by many.

    I think that IHT is easily avoidable up to the point when you are doing probate then it becomes hard.

    I also think that the trend for avoiding tax is, for most, likely to become harder. Things like the Lichenstein Disclosure mean that overseas banks in some (sensible) countries have to report unearned income. Technology has moved on. In the past I never used to declare interest received on my tax submission because they didn't know because they did not have the tools to match the bank submission with my P60. Now they do know - notwithstanding the generous allowance and low interest rates mean that I'm beneath the threshold anyway.

    That same technological capability together with the increased personal data needed to open an account means that tracking lifetime payments will become a matter of course.

    My children will not need my assistance because they will go effortlessly through life with success at every turn.

    ...unlike their dad!!! :D
  • LagrangeLagrange Posts: 652
    If I pay someone to paint my house, I am paying them out of my taxed income, and then they are taxed on that money that I have given them. Is that the same money being taxed twice?


    Some of it will be.

    You pay B the Builder £100
    He buys paint for £60

    He keeps £40 and his profit at the end of the year would be , say £30 because of charging phone, car and so on as a cost.

    More likely he would charge you a £1,000 and steal the paint and fake a purchase invoice for £999.95 and then dump the remaining paint by the side of the road.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Dont worry, though, if it ever does happen I will find a way around it.

    Not really in the spirit of the tax, is it?
    It is, given that the current version IHT has been effectively voluntary with a bit of sensible planning and absent unexpected deaths.

    It is also a very natural reaction to an onerous tax.

    Isn't that the exact reason why this tax would be proposed?
    It might be if that was the real reason, but in this case it is new old Labour trying to pluck large amounts of money from a wide section of the population under the disguise of 'fairness'. Maybe because they haven't found the £300 billion or so they need to pay for their re-nationalisation programme down the back of the sofa.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Dont worry, though, if it ever does happen I will find a way around it.

    Not really in the spirit of the tax, is it?
    It is, given that the current version IHT has been effectively voluntary with a bit of sensible planning and absent unexpected deaths.

    It is also a very natural reaction to an onerous tax.

    Not sure there is such a thing as a spirit of a tax, is there? Just a question of how well drafted the rules are.

    If you accept the basic principle that unearned income should be taxed as well as earned income then we're just debating particular thresholds and rates. Personally I think they'd be better off not distinguishing between types of income and adjusting the rates accordingly.
    I don't accept that. Neither do successive governments or HMRC, who give thresholds for many things including income tax, capital gains etc below which they are not taxed. Or exempt certain types of income altogether, e.g. dividend income for companies.
    Pretty sure that's only up to £2K and then it's taxed. My point was most types of personal income is taxed in some circumstances and above certain thresholds. It's just a question of what levels those exemptions and thresholds are set at. I completely agree that having a threshold above which a high rate kicks in from nothing is going to encourage avoidance.
    And let's not forget that lifetime gifts will generally come out of income that has already been taxed.
    Lots of things get taxed twice.
    And you're still ignoring the human factor of wanting to do the best for your kids. If you don't want to do that, up to you but it won't stop me.
    I'm not ignoring it; I just don't see how taxing gifts stops you giving them. "Ah well I was going to give you the deposit towards your first house but since HMRC will take X% I'm not going to bother"
    As for spirit of a tax, true but doesn't change the point that it is easily avoidable and will be avoided as it won't be seen as reasonable by many.
    If IHT was charged at, say, 5% but had a much lower threshold, people wouldn't get so upset about it.
    I think you are largely ignoring the human reaction to a tax hike. A good example was Labour's income tax hike to 50% which HMRC's own figures reckoned raised almost nothing - mainly because of the human reaction to it.

    True, if it was set at a low rate with a lower threshold it might be accepted by more, but that's not what Labour are proposing. They are trying to fleece people for large amounts of money.

    However the whole concept - getting taxed for dying - really is a bit callous in my view.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    I'm not advocating for this policy. I said I thought it was a crude proposal aimed as much at pandering to Momentum prejudices/annoying Tories as improving revenue. I just meant I don't have a problem in principle with there being some tax on unearned income, even when that's received from close relatives.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not advocating for this policy. I said I thought it was a crude proposal aimed as much at pandering to Momentum prejudices/annoying Tories as improving revenue. I just meant I don't have a problem in principle with there being some tax on unearned income, even when that's received from close relatives.
    OK, I get what you are saying. In reality we have that already, just above a certain threshold.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    In other news...almost everyone agrees that Farage would make a censored leader, right?

    In which case, that's bad news for Jezza :)
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-ahead-of-jeremy-corbyn-on-key-leadership-ratings-poll-finds-a4181281.html
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,794 Lives Here
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    In other news...almost everyone agrees that Farage would make a censored leader, right?

    In which case, that's bad news for Jezza :)
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-ahead-of-jeremy-corbyn-on-key-leadership-ratings-poll-finds-a4181281.html

    Plainly not everyone agrees...
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    In other news...almost everyone agrees that Farage would make a censored leader, right?

    In which case, that's bad news for Jezza :)
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-ahead-of-jeremy-corbyn-on-key-leadership-ratings-poll-finds-a4181281.html

    Plainly not everyone agrees...

    In fairness, probably a lot of his supporters have no intention of him actually getting anywhere near government.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    In other news...almost everyone agrees that Farage would make a censored leader, right?

    In which case, that's bad news for Jezza :)
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-ahead-of-jeremy-corbyn-on-key-leadership-ratings-poll-finds-a4181281.html

    Plainly not everyone agrees...
    Almost everyone on here....
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    More well informed and even handed words from Corbyn, which in no way is publicity seeking or playing to the crowd :)
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/jeremy-corbyn-attacks-amazon-tax-avoidance-a8989726.html
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Could he have finally pushed the PLP too far? There's a feeling of a showdown brewing, but we've been here before.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,794 Lives Here
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Could he have finally pushed the PLP too far? There's a feeling of a showdown brewing, but we've been here before.
    If there is, let's hope it's a long drawn out showdown with lots of acrimony :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    As mentioned above in reply to Rick: given the membership base, do you really think we would get anything better to replace them?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    As mentioned above in reply to Rick: given the membership base, do you really think we would get anything better to replace them?

    Possibly. Change the leader and the membership will change, as demonstrated across all parties. There are plenty of people who could do better, again in more than one party.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    As mentioned above in reply to Rick: given the membership base, do you really think we would get anything better to replace them?

    Possibly. Change the leader and the membership will change, as demonstrated across all parties. There are plenty of people who could do better, again in more than one party.
    Current membership elects his replacement so you can't just impose someone more mainstream on them. As I said, main point is that this situation keeps them pretty much unelectable, which is the whole point of this thread...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 3,949
    What is it about hard left and antisemitism? My partner asked and I gave a pathetic answer until I came up with the argument that the hard left are against the status quo and the elite running the v show financially and politically. They see the money men as part of the elite and see money men dominated by people of Jewish background. Thus antisemitism is more prevalent in their circles.

    Probably ask BS but the I explained that theory better that time so it sounded more plausible.

    Anyway, why do you think Labour are antisemitic since they lurched to the left and took on more hard Leftie members? Why do you think tories are more likely to be islamophobes since they lurched to the right?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,249
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    As mentioned above in reply to Rick: given the membership base, do you really think we would get anything better to replace them?

    Possibly. Change the leader and the membership will change, as demonstrated across all parties. There are plenty of people who could do better, again in more than one party.
    Current membership elects his replacement so you can't just impose someone more mainstream on them. As I said, main point is that this situation keeps them pretty much unelectable, which is the whole point of this thread...

    I fear they are not as unelectable as all that.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,279
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    As mentioned above in reply to Rick: given the membership base, do you really think we would get anything better to replace them?

    Possibly. Change the leader and the membership will change, as demonstrated across all parties. There are plenty of people who could do better, again in more than one party.
    Current membership elects his replacement so you can't just impose someone more mainstream on them. As I said, main point is that this situation keeps them pretty much unelectable, which is the whole point of this thread...

    I fear they are not as unelectable as all that.
    They're less electable than they otherwise would have been. Anyway don't worry, I'll keep up the good work for the sake of the country. It's worked so far.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
Sign In or Register to comment.