Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

Inheritance tax Frank? Where do you stand?

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

You're right Bally. Rather than pay all these taxes on all manner of things like inheritance,insurance, VAT etc lets all pay 85% income tax PAYE. Those who are still avoiding paying their share would still continue to. You keep batting for them though, indeed you might be one of them though, I don't know but it would explain.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

The man is a despicable sh*t and his wife has a £53k/year image consultant paid for by our taxes. I would be quite happy to see Sam Cam and Daves heads removed from their torsos and stuck on a spike.
And a red hot poker inserted into the rectum of George Osborne.
May sound harsh, but,I really have nothing but hatred in my heart for these people.

I suppose we should kick out the capitalists and replace them with socialists. After all, we know how well it works...

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Inheritance tax Frank? Where do you stand?

It won't effect me, I have no inheritance.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

Apart from the point that it is double taxation, only a socialist could dream up taxing somebody for being dead.

Incentivises people to create wealth and use it rather than sit on it.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

You're right Bally. Rather than pay all these taxes on all manner of things like inheritance,insurance, VAT etc lets all pay 85% income tax PAYE. Those who are still avoiding paying their share would still continue to. You keep batting for them though, indeed you might be one of them though, I don't know but it would explain.

Great idea Frank, get Jezza to put it in his manifesto. Should be worth a few votes.
The only people left here would be us poor folk.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

Apart from the point that it is double taxation, only a socialist could dream up taxing somebody for being dead.

Incentivises people to create wealth and use it rather than sit on it.

Using that logic, why not take it all. Set the rate at 100% instead of 40%

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

You're right Bally. Rather than pay all these taxes on all manner of things like inheritance,insurance, VAT etc lets all pay 85% income tax PAYE. Those who are still avoiding paying their share would still continue to. You keep batting for them though, indeed you might be one of them though, I don't know but it would explain.

I wonder how many people would do any significant amount of work at that rate of tax?

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

The man is a despicable sh*t and his wife has a £53k/year image consultant paid for by our taxes. I would be quite happy to see Sam Cam and Daves heads removed from their torsos and stuck on a spike.
And a red hot poker inserted into the rectum of George Osborne.
May sound harsh, but,I really have nothing but hatred in my heart for these people.

I suppose we should kick out the capitalists and replace them with socialists. After all, we know how well it works...

Stuff your propaganda, we are being told there is fcuk in the coffers yet his mrs has a image consultant costing a grand a week at our expence, which she could well afford herself.
Defend that.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

Apart from the point that it is double taxation, only a socialist could dream up taxing somebody for being dead.

Incentivises people to create wealth and use it rather than sit on it.

Using that logic, why not take it all. Set the rate at 100% instead of 40%

Because there's also element of people wanting to create wealth to pass on to their children. Don't want to reduce that incentive either.

It's all about balance Bally. Because the noisiest people on here are quite far on the right, I probably come across as more left than I really am. But i'm pro technocratic liberal policies ; which is a lot less ideological than you lot, believe it or not.

Stevo_666

Remember who emptied the coffers Frank?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

You're right Bally. Rather than pay all these taxes on all manner of things like inheritance,insurance, VAT etc lets all pay 85% income tax PAYE. Those who are still avoiding paying their share would still continue to. You keep batting for them though, indeed you might be one of them though, I don't know but it would explain.

I wonder how many people would do any significant amount of work at that rate of tax?

How much of your take home pay is taken off you in additional taxes and duty, loads. you're taxed when you earn,save, spend, die. The system looks after those who have.
You and I have to accept we will never agree on such matters. I have a clear social conscience that's good enough for me.

Stevo_666

A social conscience is fine but its no substiture for economic and fiscal sense.

ballysmate

Well Frank. I must agree with you, she shouldn't be on the payroll, but I assume that she is because it is allowed. Is that it? All these pages and newspaper articles, tax returns disected and that is the worst anyone can come up with?
BTW remember Tony Blair increasing the number of his special advisers from the 8 Major had to 21? Lord knows what they advised him on.
But in essence, I agree, the number of advisers should be pared.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Remember who emptied the coffers Frank?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

The coffers were emptied with good intentions.
The labour government bailed out the banks out of need. Had they not millions of people would have ended up in serious sh1t pensionless penniless through no fault of their own. Up to that point the books were good. You cannot hold a government responsible for things outside their duristiction. However the tories ill keep slating labour.
BTW Osborne has borrowed more money than any other chancellorin history, he is an incompetent.

ballysmate

I too have a clear conscience Frank. It is socialists who think, 'I have FA so I think it only right that everyone else has FA as well' who should look to their conscience.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Well Frank. I must agree with you, she shouldn't be on the payroll, but I assume that she is because it is allowed. Is that it? All these pages and newspaper articles, tax returns disected and that is the worst anyone can come up with?
BTW remember Tony Blair increasing the number of his special advisers from the 8 Major had to 21? Lord knows what they advised him on.
But in essence, I agree, the number of advisers should be pared.

In another post I have defended "new labour" but Blair was the bastard child of Thatcher in my eyes and that is why the nation is struggling getting on for 40 years of tory government. "New labour" were not NOT a socialist government.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Remember who emptied the coffers Frank?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

The coffers were emptied with good intentions.
The labour government bailed out the banks out of need. Had they not millions of people would have ended up in serious sh1t pensionless penniless through no fault of their own. Up to that point the books were good. You cannot hold a government responsible for things outside their duristiction. However the tories ill keep slating labour.
BTW Osborne has borrowed more money than any other chancellorin history, he is an incompetent.

Funny. A member of the Labour government at the time thinks differently.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... erspending

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

Apart from the point that it is double taxation, only a socialist could dream up taxing somebody for being dead.

Incentivises people to create wealth and use it rather than sit on it.

Using that logic, why not take it all. Set the rate at 100% instead of 40%

Because there's also element of people wanting to create wealth to pass on to their children. Don't want to reduce that incentive either.

It's all about balance Bally. Because the noisiest people on here are quite far on the right, I probably come across as more left than I really am. But i'm pro technocratic liberal policies ; which is a lot less ideological than you lot, believe it or not.

Well I never!! A Liberal who wants it both ways, who'd have thought it?

Edit You reckon the noisiest on here are far(?) on the right. You may think us noisy, but we are certainly outnumbered.

Frank the tank

Bally, Stevo, my cyber friends. We will never agree on political ideals. Personally I would like to "chew the cud" with you both over a table full of ale 'cos within the debate I'm sure a few laughs would be had unlike on here, and we'd still end up dis-agreeing but we'd end up shaking hands and arranging a ride somewhere or another.
That will not happen though so I'm not surrendering but I am saying the arguing is pointless. A bit like wrestling a pig in sh1t, eventually you realize the pig is enjoying it.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Bally, Stevo, my cyber friends. We will never agree on political ideals. Personally I would like to "chew the cud" with you both over a table full of ale 'cos within the debate I'm sure a few laughs would be had unlike on here, and we'd still end up dis-agreeing but we'd end up shaking hands and arranging a ride somewhere or another.
That will not happen though so I'm not surrendering but I am saying the arguing is pointless. A bit like wrestling a pig in sh1t, eventually you realize the pig is enjoying it.

I too would love to share a pint or two or more with you.
Please don't take anything on here too seriously as sometimes the printed word does not always convey every nuance of the spoken word.
Sleep tight my lefty friend.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Bally, Stevo, my cyber friends. We will never agree on political ideals. Personally I would like to "chew the cud" with you both over a table full of ale 'cos within the debate I'm sure a few laughs would be had unlike on here, and we'd still end up dis-agreeing but we'd end up shaking hands and arranging a ride somewhere or another.
That will not happen though so I'm not surrendering but I am saying the arguing is pointless. A bit like wrestling a pig in sh1t, eventually you realize the pig is enjoying it.

I too would love to share a pint or two or more with you.
Please don't take anything on here too seriously as sometimes the printed word does not always convey every nuance of the spoken word.
Sleep tight my lefty friend.

My point exactly mate.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

A social conscience is fine but its no substiture for economic and fiscal sense.

your wrong there

oh would that mean ideological austerity? (rather than good management) cut cut cut then when this actually costs money and lives, then spend more than if we d managed properly in the first place... Flood defence cuts, nursing cuts, road mtce cuts - what you say to the wife of a cyclist killed in Devon after hitting a pot hole... not fixed by his cash strapped council (tory run)..... or the boy killed by his mother, failed by a social services dept that has had a 6million budget cut but over 9000 referrals? ...what? Austerity works?

these cuts have real consequence and dont save money.

but as frank points out, spend spend spend on a design consultant

as for death duties? thats not a socialist policy, it was introduced long before socialism, by a liberal Government in 1894 and by a gov that would make the present incumbents seem like a bunch of swivel eyed communists.

i ve not read any comment that suggests DC has done anything illegal, any more than Carr did, but that didnt stop DC from sticking the boot in, live by the sword die by the sword..

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Bally, Stevo, my cyber friends. We will never agree on political ideals. Personally I would like to "chew the cud" with you both over a table full of ale 'cos within the debate I'm sure a few laughs would be had unlike on here, and we'd still end up dis-agreeing but we'd end up shaking hands and arranging a ride somewhere or another.
That will not happen though so I'm not surrendering but I am saying the arguing is pointless. A bit like wrestling a pig in sh1t, eventually you realize the pig is enjoying it.

I too would love to share a pint or two or more with you.
Please don't take anything on here too seriously as sometimes the printed word does not always convey every nuance of the spoken word.
Sleep tight my lefty friend.

+1

Not a bad summary

ballysmate

Jimmy Carr IIRC set up his affairs so that he wouldn't have to pay as much tax on his income. Cameron bought trusts abroad, paid tax on his dividends and declared any taxable profit to HMRC.
See the difference?

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Jimmy Carr IIRC set up his affairs so that he wouldn't have to pay as much tax on his income. Cameron bought trusts abroad, paid tax on his dividends and declared any taxable profit to HMRC.
See the difference?

Not in the eyes of the law.

ballysmate

Cameron avoided no tax, Carr did.
But you are right, Carr didn't do anything illegal either.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Cameron avoided no tax, Carr did.
But you are right, Carr didn't do anything illegal either.

if Dc deliberately sold just before hit cgt then he avoided tax... point is, DC was very vocal against Carr and Carr is a comedian not PM...see the difference? Caesars wife should be above suspicion

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

A social conscience is fine but its no substiture for economic and fiscal sense.

your wrong there

oh would that mean ideological austerity? (rather than good management) cut cut cut then when this actually costs money and lives, then spend more than if we d managed properly in the first place... Flood defence cuts, nursing cuts, road mtce cuts - what you say to the wife of a cyclist killed in Devon after hitting a pot hole... not fixed by his cash strapped council (tory run)..... or the boy killed by his mother, failed by a social services dept that has had a 6million budget cut but over 9000 referrals? ...what? Austerity works?

these cuts have real consequence and dont save money.

but as frank points out, spend spend spend on a design consultant

as for death duties? thats not a socialist policy, it was introduced long before socialism, by a liberal Government in 1894 and by a gov that would make the present incumbents seem like a bunch of swivel eyed communists.

i ve not read any comment that suggests DC has done anything illegal, any more than Carr did, but that didnt stop DC from sticking the boot in, live by the sword die by the sword..

It's not if your fiscal ideas don't work.

Do you really think that a tax rate of 85% as suggested by Frank would be beneficial and raise taxes? Before you answer, take a look at a country that had a top rate of tax on earned income of 83%. You might think that would result in massive amounts of tax revenue if you apply the simplistic lefty (non)logic of increase in tax rate automatically increases tax revenues - but in fact this country ended up going to the IMF for a bail out. The country? The UK in the 1970's.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's not if your fiscal ideas don't work.

I find the thinking that today's fiscal ideas are working both humorous and scary in equal measures.