FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Centrists
Centrists
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Going to try this again because it started some interesting discussion before the inevitable bickering or tangential discussion took the thread off course. Q1. What defines someone as being a Centrist in the UK in 2023? Q2. How far to the left or right of absolute centre can someone be before they are no longer considered a centrist but in fact left wing or right wing? Q3. When defining someone’s position do you place equal weighting on social policies and economic policies? If not, which matters more? *Obviously as people have pointed out perception is relative to where you actually sit on the scale yourself and your self perception, but let’s give it a try? " 1 & 2. I effectively think these answers are intertwined. So for me, someone who is 'centrist' will be someone who can take the good of left and right, and somehow turn them into something viable. This could mean compromises either way. Both Sunak & Starmer are closer to being centrists than 'far'. 3. Equal weighting is a hard one to define. Someone could very well be 'right' on economic but 'left' on social. I'm not sure where you categorise them, probably 'centre'. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Left wing have there beliefs right wing have there beliefs centerists are a bit beige who dont like to rock the boat" Interesting take. I would (of course) argue differently that Centrists are pragmatists rather than ideologues. | |||
"Q1: The majority of the country’s electorate are centrist Q2: as long as the voter is not aligned to a party as a sure vote, the voter may have many different values but spread across multiple parties. The person is not influenced by one so therefore must still be centre’ish. Q3: As per q2, a person could believe in social responsibility and it scores highly on their values. However they may fall heavily towards law and order and believe in the benefits of capitalist markets for future growth. In short, anyone who doesn’t giver their vote away because it’s simply the party they vote for, regardless. " Good take makes sense. I too think the UK is generally centrist but the pendulum swings. For a while it has swung more to the right IMO. The centre ground is generally what wins elections, the swing voters. | |||
"Q1: The majority of the country’s electorate are centrist Q2: as long as the voter is not aligned to a party as a sure vote, the voter may have many different values but spread across multiple parties. The person is not influenced by one so therefore must still be centre’ish. Q3: As per q2, a person could believe in social responsibility and it scores highly on their values. However they may fall heavily towards law and order and believe in the benefits of capitalist markets for future growth. In short, anyone who doesn’t giver their vote away because it’s simply the party they vote for, regardless. Good take makes sense. I too think the UK is generally centrist but the pendulum swings. For a while it has swung more to the right IMO. The centre ground is generally what wins elections, the swing voters." When the country swings to the right, does the centre move with it? IE. Is today's centre in a place that would have been considered right wing 20 years ago? | |||
"Q1: The majority of the country’s electorate are centrist Q2: as long as the voter is not aligned to a party as a sure vote, the voter may have many different values but spread across multiple parties. The person is not influenced by one so therefore must still be centre’ish. Q3: As per q2, a person could believe in social responsibility and it scores highly on their values. However they may fall heavily towards law and order and believe in the benefits of capitalist markets for future growth. In short, anyone who doesn’t giver their vote away because it’s simply the party they vote for, regardless. Good take makes sense. I too think the UK is generally centrist but the pendulum swings. For a while it has swung more to the right IMO. The centre ground is generally what wins elections, the swing voters. When the country swings to the right, does the centre move with it? IE. Is today's centre in a place that would have been considered right wing 20 years ago?" IMHO it stays where it is but people’s perception of where the centre point is changes. Hence the wide range of views on here. It becomes relative. | |||
| |||
"Q1: The majority of the country’s electorate are centrist Q2: as long as the voter is not aligned to a party as a sure vote, the voter may have many different values but spread across multiple parties. The person is not influenced by one so therefore must still be centre’ish. Q3: As per q2, a person could believe in social responsibility and it scores highly on their values. However they may fall heavily towards law and order and believe in the benefits of capitalist markets for future growth. In short, anyone who doesn’t giver their vote away because it’s simply the party they vote for, regardless. Good take makes sense. I too think the UK is generally centrist but the pendulum swings. For a while it has swung more to the right IMO. The centre ground is generally what wins elections, the swing voters. When the country swings to the right, does the centre move with it? IE. Is today's centre in a place that would have been considered right wing 20 years ago? IMHO it stays where it is but people’s perception of where the centre point is changes. Hence the wide range of views on here. It becomes relative." I would agree it should stay in place. But it feels like it drifts around as the country moves left and right over time. | |||
"I suspect centre is "right of me, but no sar far right I think you're a dick". My general philosophy is we should protect those who need help, allow people the freedom to do well, but not allow success to prevent others from becoming doing well. That, it seems, is a bit lefty. So something to the right of that is centre. Which I suspect allows a bit more for individual (or small group) success even if that means disadvantaged wider groups " "but not allow success to prevent others from becoming doing well." What do you mean by this? I have success in my own industry. No one helped me gain it just as no one prevented me. | |||
"I suspect centre is "right of me, but no sar far right I think you're a dick". My general philosophy is we should protect those who need help, allow people the freedom to do well, but not allow success to prevent others from becoming doing well. That, it seems, is a bit lefty. So something to the right of that is centre. Which I suspect allows a bit more for individual (or small group) success even if that means disadvantaged wider groups "but not allow success to prevent others from becoming doing well." What do you mean by this? I have success in my own industry. No one helped me gain it just as no one prevented me." institutionalised privilege. I'm more in favour of some wealth distribution at death than others. Many will want to protect their wealth for their kids even if that means making it harder for someone else kids to succeed. (or as is probably the case, makes it harder for their own kids to progress as those above have more opportunities. It just doesn't feel that way) Don't want to distract from the the end tho. But get this make a me lefty even if I look light I should be right on paper) | |||
"I suspect centre is "right of me, but no sar far right I think you're a dick". My general philosophy is we should protect those who need help, allow people the freedom to do well, but not allow success to prevent others from becoming doing well. That, it seems, is a bit lefty. So something to the right of that is centre. Which I suspect allows a bit more for individual (or small group) success even if that means disadvantaged wider groups "but not allow success to prevent others from becoming doing well." What do you mean by this? I have success in my own industry. No one helped me gain it just as no one prevented me.institutionalised privilege. I'm more in favour of some wealth distribution at death than others. Many will want to protect their wealth for their kids even if that means making it harder for someone else kids to succeed. (or as is probably the case, makes it harder for their own kids to progress as those above have more opportunities. It just doesn't feel that way) Don't want to distract from the the end tho. But get this make a me lefty even if I look light I should be right on paper)" Yeah I would say 'wealth distribution at death' would put you on the left on that particular instance, that doesn't make a 'leftie' though. Me personally, I'm on the right in that sense, my own opinion is why should the money/assets than I built myself (with help from wife) be distributed to someone I don't know, I want my kids or grandkids to have it. I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. " The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people." I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. " I agree | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else." "The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people." "I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage." I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. | |||
| |||
"There’s a theory that a very high inheritance tax rate is actually the best way to put money into the capitalist system. Force the wealthy to spend as they near their end, rather than shoring it up in the hope of passing it along to someone else who won’t spend it." But surely the very wealthy will just offshore it? Establish a company or trust registered in a tax haven and make their children directors or beneficiaries? | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged." I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused." its semantics maybe, but giving an advantage is similar to causing disadvantage. Even before thinking what could have been done to create more fairness. It's a simplification maybe, but in my minds it's part of ten system that puts a disproportionate amount of etonians in power, while slowing down class mobility. I'm not as far as saying everyone should have equal share of everything but am for more equity of opportunity. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused." You get confused as I get confused on this. I work hard and I should be able to pass on my money and assets to my family without having to pay tax on things that have already been taxed on, heavily. I really do not consider anyone else in this and I find it alien that there are people who are happy to give random people their money and minimise what is left to their family. In my opinion they are the ones who are confused. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused.its semantics maybe, but giving an advantage is similar to causing disadvantage. Even before thinking what could have been done to create more fairness. It's a simplification maybe, but in my minds it's part of ten system that puts a disproportionate amount of etonians in power, while slowing down class mobility. I'm not as far as saying everyone should have equal share of everything but am for more equity of opportunity. " It is semantics I think. I think its possibly a mentality and outlook thing too. I am no doubt giving my children an advantage, I get that. I am not disadvantaging others, that's not on me, they can blame their own parents for that. Maybe that's the capitalist in me. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused.its semantics maybe, but giving an advantage is similar to causing disadvantage. Even before thinking what could have been done to create more fairness. It's a simplification maybe, but in my minds it's part of ten system that puts a disproportionate amount of etonians in power, while slowing down class mobility. I'm not as far as saying everyone should have equal share of everything but am for more equity of opportunity. It is semantics I think. I think its possibly a mentality and outlook thing too. I am no doubt giving my children an advantage, I get that. I am not disadvantaging others, that's not on me, they can blame their own parents for that. Maybe that's the capitalist in me. " This post and NotMe both get a 
I support a more equitable society and looking after the poor or those less able to look after themselves. That is why I pay my taxes throughout my life. All my assets have been paid for through post tax income and at a higher rate than the majority of people. I do not agree that those assets should then be taxed again when I die. In my opinion the state has received enough from me through my life.
As Feisty says, passing on my estate to my children means they get an advantage that was built on the back of my hard work. Their advantage is not a disadvantage to someone else. A disadvantage to someone else would be my child benefitting from someone else’s parent’s hard work and taking it away from them. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. " I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. " its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. " How refreshing to be having a discussion. More people (inc me) could learn a thing or two from you. My experience is uncannily similar to yours. I don’t subscribe to my achievements being down to luck (of course there is always some luck involved but that did not revolve around money) it was my hard work. Am I lucky to have been a bit clever? Maybe? Am I lucky my working class/trades people family were encouraging and wanted me to fulfil my potential? Maybe? You see I don’t think it is wealth per se that gives advantage (it certainly helps remove pressure) it is contacts. It is who you know. That isn’t removed by IHT. I have a really good network across several industry sectors due to both my career, my university friends, and actually still a couple of school friends who were successful. I will unashamedly use that network to give my children a head start on the career ladder when the time comes. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. " I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. How refreshing to be having a discussion. More people (inc me) could learn a thing or two from you. My experience is uncannily similar to yours. I don’t subscribe to my achievements being down to luck (of course there is always some luck involved but that did not revolve around money) it was my hard work. Am I lucky to have been a bit clever? Maybe? Am I lucky my working class/trades people family were encouraging and wanted me to fulfil my potential? Maybe? You see I don’t think it is wealth per se that gives advantage (it certainly helps remove pressure) it is contacts. It is who you know. That isn’t removed by IHT. I have a really good network across several industry sectors due to both my career, my university friends, and actually still a couple of school friends who were successful. I will unashamedly use that network to give my children a head start on the career ladder when the time comes." I don't wanna interrupt this response but I just wanted to say I've always seen Hovis (I'm still calling him Hovis) as a fairly balanced individual who does well to get his point across without being offending or condescending. As you say, we could all learn a thing or two  | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused." It’s your prerogative, but giving x an additional help up the ladder always comes at the disadvantage of y. It may not be intentional, but that’s how things work. You want your child/family member to get that place in school/college/work and rightly so. But someone else will miss out as a result. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. " The book ‘Chums’ is excellent on this topic, relating specifically to Oxford. The notion that hard work is enough is demonstrably false. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused. It’s your prerogative, but giving x an additional help up the ladder always comes at the disadvantage of y. It may not be intentional, but that’s how things work. You want your child/family member to get that place in school/college/work and rightly so. But someone else will miss out as a result. " I think we were strictly speaking of inheritance at the point. Financial assets. Me leaving assets to my children or grandchildren does not mean someone else misses out. Your second statement is true. However, its not my place to worry about others, I place my worry firmly on my own. If it comes down to my child against another for 1 place at Oxford and the other gets the place, I'm not going to blame them for it, I'm going to push my child to work harder and harder until they achieve what they want. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused. It’s your prerogative, but giving x an additional help up the ladder always comes at the disadvantage of y. It may not be intentional, but that’s how things work. You want your child/family member to get that place in school/college/work and rightly so. But someone else will miss out as a result. " Life is competitive. Place at best university. That sweet job. Getting the best looking wife (joke). All these things are finite. And people will always look for opportunities to give them the edge (or should). I suspect this discussion is straying beyond IHT but on that point I don’t see a justifiable argument on why I shouldn’t leave my entire estate to my kids tax free? If I may can we touch upon your job. I believe you work in the rail industry in a managerial position? As such I would imagine you will know if any jobs or recruitment was going to kick off. You’d know what skills and type of people they are looking for? You’d know the hiring managers? So if you had a son, daughter, nephew, niece, who was job hunting and fancied working in the railways, would you help them? Not saying subvert the “open and fair recruitment process” but would you advise candidate? Coach them? Tell them what sort of things will be asked and how to answer? Etc | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged." I struggle to understand the reasoning of this. If you take it further then you could say that unless I give every penny I have now and earn in the future to the state then I'm disavantaging future people. I tend to agree with others and want to pass things on to children. I agree it helps my children but don't feel this disadvantages others. In fact you could say that if I help my children in such a way then they are less likely to be a burden on the state. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'." there is that for sure. I'd probably argue that money buys opportunities. It buys contacts. Of course one can get opportunities and contacts in other ways, however things being equal I believe that the person with wealth will have more opportunities/contacts than the kid growing up in an inner city tower block. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'.there is that for sure. I'd probably argue that money buys opportunities. It buys contacts. Of course one can get opportunities and contacts in other ways, however things being equal I believe that the person with wealth will have more opportunities/contacts than the kid growing up in an inner city tower block. " I agree that money probably buys you those things, not in all aspects but without doubt in some. I just don't see that advanataging one disadvantages another. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'.there is that for sure. I'd probably argue that money buys opportunities. It buys contacts. Of course one can get opportunities and contacts in other ways, however things being equal I believe that the person with wealth will have more opportunities/contacts than the kid growing up in an inner city tower block. " But do you really think collecting more tax via IHT can change that? If so how? Is it better funding of education? Will that increase grade point average? Open up more inner city kids to Oxbridge? Where do the contacts come from? Is it fair that I pay 45% IC plus NIC plus VAT plus SD etc etc (in other words make a significant tax contribution to this country and therefore actually advantage/help other kids way more than their parents gave helped my kids) and then still have tax deducted from my estate that has been bought out of my net income (with each purchase taxed)? For avoidance of doubt, I accept paying 45% tax. I would prefer not to. I would prefer to keep all my money. But I also accept that I want to live in a civilised country with low crime, healthy happy people, with good facilities and services (even though I may not use all if those services, my family, friends, colleagues, and staff will) so I know I need to do my bit (while I am alive). | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused. It’s your prerogative, but giving x an additional help up the ladder always comes at the disadvantage of y. It may not be intentional, but that’s how things work. You want your child/family member to get that place in school/college/work and rightly so. But someone else will miss out as a result. Life is competitive. Place at best university. That sweet job. Getting the best looking wife (joke). All these things are finite. And people will always look for opportunities to give them the edge (or should). I suspect this discussion is straying beyond IHT but on that point I don’t see a justifiable argument on why I shouldn’t leave my entire estate to my kids tax free? If I may can we touch upon your job. I believe you work in the rail industry in a managerial position? As such I would imagine you will know if any jobs or recruitment was going to kick off. You’d know what skills and type of people they are looking for? You’d know the hiring managers? So if you had a son, daughter, nephew, niece, who was job hunting and fancied working in the railways, would you help them? Not saying subvert the “open and fair recruitment process” but would you advise candidate? Coach them? Tell them what sort of things will be asked and how to answer? Etc " Funny enough I’ve had this conversation with my lad who wants to join the railway when he’s old enough - I would absolutely point him in the right direction of what we’re looking for, you’re right. He’d receive an ‘unfair’ advantage for sure. I can’t help him directly in an interview, and I certainly can’t bump him up the list - but I can advise him of where and how to do his research - and that would put him a smidge ahead of less prepared candidates before even walking in the door. | |||
"I've never really understood the notion that if I give my kids a leg up that it disadvantages anyone else. The idea is that if there was no inheritance, all the money would go to the state. If you want all your money to go to your children, that means the government doesn't have that money to spend on other people. I hate to say it but thats not my problem. I've paid my taxes, as will my children. I still don't see how it puts other at a disadvantage. I don't see how I could explain it any more simply. In a fully socialist state, if you give money as an inheritance to your children, that money isn't being given to the state, so the state has less money to spend on educating the children of poorer people. Those poorer people are thus disadvantaged. I understand what you're saying but hear me out. If I give inheritance to my children, it will put them at an advantage over someone who doesn't receive inheritance. It does not disadvantage anyone else. They are still where they were prior to my children getting inheritance. That's where I get confused. It’s your prerogative, but giving x an additional help up the ladder always comes at the disadvantage of y. It may not be intentional, but that’s how things work. You want your child/family member to get that place in school/college/work and rightly so. But someone else will miss out as a result. Life is competitive. Place at best university. That sweet job. Getting the best looking wife (joke). All these things are finite. And people will always look for opportunities to give them the edge (or should). I suspect this discussion is straying beyond IHT but on that point I don’t see a justifiable argument on why I shouldn’t leave my entire estate to my kids tax free? If I may can we touch upon your job. I believe you work in the rail industry in a managerial position? As such I would imagine you will know if any jobs or recruitment was going to kick off. You’d know what skills and type of people they are looking for? You’d know the hiring managers? So if you had a son, daughter, nephew, niece, who was job hunting and fancied working in the railways, would you help them? Not saying subvert the “open and fair recruitment process” but would you advise candidate? Coach them? Tell them what sort of things will be asked and how to answer? Etc Funny enough I’ve had this conversation with my lad who wants to join the railway when he’s old enough - I would absolutely point him in the right direction of what we’re looking for, you’re right. He’d receive an ‘unfair’ advantage for sure. I can’t help him directly in an interview, and I certainly can’t bump him up the list - but I can advise him of where and how to do his research - and that would put him a smidge ahead of less prepared candidates before even walking in the door. " I’d hope your advice was more than a smidge! And him simply stating in the interview that Dad works in railways will help! | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'.there is that for sure. I'd probably argue that money buys opportunities. It buys contacts. Of course one can get opportunities and contacts in other ways, however things being equal I believe that the person with wealth will have more opportunities/contacts than the kid growing up in an inner city tower block. But do you really think collecting more tax via IHT can change that? If so how? Is it better funding of education? Will that increase grade point average? Open up more inner city kids to Oxbridge? Where do the contacts come from? Is it fair that I pay 45% IC plus NIC plus VAT plus SD etc etc (in other words make a significant tax contribution to this country and therefore actually advantage/help other kids way more than their parents gave helped my kids) and then still have tax deducted from my estate that has been bought out of my net income (with each purchase taxed)? For avoidance of doubt, I accept paying 45% tax. I would prefer not to. I would prefer to keep all my money. But I also accept that I want to live in a civilised country with low crime, healthy happy people, with good facilities and services (even though I may not use all if those services, my family, friends, colleagues, and staff will) so I know I need to do my bit (while I am alive)." overall tax fairness is a slightly different convo. If the total tax is right, I'm more in favour of reducing income tax and increasing IHT. We all get taxef multiple times on what we see as the same money. My view is we accept tax because it delivers our aims, either for ourselves it society. If an aim is to create more equity if opportunity I believe IHT is a fairer tax than others because as well as creating revenue it directly addresses the imbalance. Governments don't like it because it postpones taxs. In a funny way I think that makes it a better tax for supporting children. You get to give / spend / invest more now versus waiting for you to be dead, by which time your kids are probably 50, and either had their opportunities/made their contacts or not. Wealth takes a few generation to charge the full scale of benefits, but is sticky once it is there. Hence old money. | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'.there is that for sure. I'd probably argue that money buys opportunities. It buys contacts. Of course one can get opportunities and contacts in other ways, however things being equal I believe that the person with wealth will have more opportunities/contacts than the kid growing up in an inner city tower block. But do you really think collecting more tax via IHT can change that? If so how? Is it better funding of education? Will that increase grade point average? Open up more inner city kids to Oxbridge? Where do the contacts come from? Is it fair that I pay 45% IC plus NIC plus VAT plus SD etc etc (in other words make a significant tax contribution to this country and therefore actually advantage/help other kids way more than their parents gave helped my kids) and then still have tax deducted from my estate that has been bought out of my net income (with each purchase taxed)? For avoidance of doubt, I accept paying 45% tax. I would prefer not to. I would prefer to keep all my money. But I also accept that I want to live in a civilised country with low crime, healthy happy people, with good facilities and services (even though I may not use all if those services, my family, friends, colleagues, and staff will) so I know I need to do my bit (while I am alive).overall tax fairness is a slightly different convo. If the total tax is right, I'm more in favour of reducing income tax and increasing IHT. We all get taxef multiple times on what we see as the same money. My view is we accept tax because it delivers our aims, either for ourselves it society. If an aim is to create more equity if opportunity I believe IHT is a fairer tax than others because as well as creating revenue it directly addresses the imbalance. Governments don't like it because it postpones taxs. In a funny way I think that makes it a better tax for supporting children. You get to give / spend / invest more now versus waiting for you to be dead, by which time your kids are probably 50, and either had their opportunities/made their contacts or not. Wealth takes a few generation to charge the full scale of benefits, but is sticky once it is there. Hence old money. " I understand your point but (always a but) we are only allowed to gift a certain amount to our children each year and then there is tge seven year rule. Also there are multiple ways for the super rich to reduce IHT liabilities. So in reality it is people falling into middle/upper middle income brackets who get hit by IHT due to house price inflation. And what about regional differences? Child inherits family home in Humberside and keeps the lot. Child inherits family home in Sussex, has to sell to pay IHT liabilities. | |||
| |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. I like this post. I love it when we can accept that whilst we may not agree with others, we can at least allow for differences of opinion. Just one thing I think if like to ask... Why do you believe that you going to Oxbridge was part luck? Why wasn't it down to your own sheer hard graft? This is the mentality thing I was alluding to earlier. Be proud of what you've achieved and fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. its both. My college had a push to encourage state school people to apply. I was lucky enough that they came to my school at a time I could attend. Before then I hadn't even entertained the idea. I was also lucky enough to be in a year that had enough people to run double maths. Most years that wasn't an option. Absolutely hard work was a part of it. But the other representation of public schools in oxbridge, C-suite and policies isn't because eton selects the hardest workers. I understand what you're saying. I believe we could apportion that kind of 'luck' to almost everything in life though. Good or bad. I prefer to look at it through a lense of 'you seizing an opportunity'.there is that for sure. I'd probably argue that money buys opportunities. It buys contacts. Of course one can get opportunities and contacts in other ways, however things being equal I believe that the person with wealth will have more opportunities/contacts than the kid growing up in an inner city tower block. But do you really think collecting more tax via IHT can change that? If so how? Is it better funding of education? Will that increase grade point average? Open up more inner city kids to Oxbridge? Where do the contacts come from? Is it fair that I pay 45% IC plus NIC plus VAT plus SD etc etc (in other words make a significant tax contribution to this country and therefore actually advantage/help other kids way more than their parents gave helped my kids) and then still have tax deducted from my estate that has been bought out of my net income (with each purchase taxed)? For avoidance of doubt, I accept paying 45% tax. I would prefer not to. I would prefer to keep all my money. But I also accept that I want to live in a civilised country with low crime, healthy happy people, with good facilities and services (even though I may not use all if those services, my family, friends, colleagues, and staff will) so I know I need to do my bit (while I am alive).overall tax fairness is a slightly different convo. If the total tax is right, I'm more in favour of reducing income tax and increasing IHT. We all get taxef multiple times on what we see as the same money. My view is we accept tax because it delivers our aims, either for ourselves it society. If an aim is to create more equity if opportunity I believe IHT is a fairer tax than others because as well as creating revenue it directly addresses the imbalance. Governments don't like it because it postpones taxs. In a funny way I think that makes it a better tax for supporting children. You get to give / spend / invest more now versus waiting for you to be dead, by which time your kids are probably 50, and either had their opportunities/made their contacts or not. Wealth takes a few generation to charge the full scale of benefits, but is sticky once it is there. Hence old money. I understand your point but (always a but) we are only allowed to gift a certain amount to our children each year and then there is tge seven year rule. Also there are multiple ways for the super rich to reduce IHT liabilities. So in reality it is people falling into middle/upper middle income brackets who get hit by IHT due to house price inflation. And what about regional differences? Child inherits family home in Humberside and keeps the lot. Child inherits family home in Sussex, has to sell to pay IHT liabilities." the current system has holes. Same as paye. And corporation tax. Irrc you can gift as much as you want but as you say the 7 year rule kicks in. So atm there are ways around it... But if that's the case people shouldn't be so anti it. Family homes is the other part where emotion kicks in. Even tho many ppl will inherit a house they did not grow up in. But if be comfortable with happens here. After all either someone paid a lot more the Sussex home so had more wealth, or has benefited massively from capital gains that has yet to be taxed. | |||
"BTW this IHT discussion is seemingly tangential to the point of the thread, ie what is a centrist. However, I think it is a good illustration of how people think differently in one topic/policy vs another." my fault. Although it does help show left v right is often about values (normally "fairness)" rather than the policy. Which is a point being discussed in the nazi thread as well. | |||
"BTW this IHT discussion is seemingly tangential to the point of the thread, ie what is a centrist. However, I think it is a good illustration of how people think differently in one topic/policy vs another." Being 'Mr Stayontopic', I give my approval for this one. My reasoning: it has naturally veered and there hasn't been any deflection or whataboutery. | |||
"BTW this IHT discussion is seemingly tangential to the point of the thread, ie what is a centrist. However, I think it is a good illustration of how people think differently in one topic/policy vs another. Being 'Mr Stayontopic', I give my approval for this one. My reasoning: it has naturally veered and there hasn't been any deflection or whataboutery." “Stay on topic” had distinctly Star Wars vibes in my head then!  | |||
"BTW this IHT discussion is seemingly tangential to the point of the thread, ie what is a centrist. However, I think it is a good illustration of how people think differently in one topic/policy vs another. Being 'Mr Stayontopic', I give my approval for this one. My reasoning: it has naturally veered and there hasn't been any deflection or whataboutery. “Stay on topic” had distinctly Star Wars vibes in my head then! "You've lost me with Star Wars I'm afraid | |||
"BTW this IHT discussion is seemingly tangential to the point of the thread, ie what is a centrist. However, I think it is a good illustration of how people think differently in one topic/policy vs another. Being 'Mr Stayontopic', I give my approval for this one. My reasoning: it has naturally veered and there hasn't been any deflection or whataboutery. “Stay on topic” had distinctly Star Wars vibes in my head then!
You've lost me with Star Wars I'm afraid "Heathen  | |||
"I do like this topic as I think it helps bring out the political tensions! And I do understand where everyone is coming from. So I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong. It's all opinions. To be clear, I share many experiences. I grew up in a single-parent house (back when divorces were rarer and single mums was DM fodder) and went to a comprehensive. Thru a combo of luck and hard work, I went to Oxbridge and am now taxed to the hilt. My estate will have an IHT bill. So this isn't just theory or personal gain for me. But that journey may have meant I see how much success is down to parents (and older generations again) versus hard work or genetic good fortune. I'm not advocating 100pc IHT, nor do I think the current IHT work well (likewise income tax!). But I feel that it is wealth, not income, that drives disparity and prevents people from having a fair crack at the whip. I think it sucks that a comprehensive school kid needed to be in the right place, right time, even to believe Oxbridge was a possibility when an etonion might almost be a talking their place as a given. I don't doubt the posters here worked fucking hard to get where they got. However, I suspect part of that was swimming against a tide that shouldn't have been there. Maybe I'm wrong and am basing my views on an experience that isn't typical. As I said, I'm not seeking to convince but more to put across my views. I get the other side, and like much in politics, there's no right or wrong. Just opinions and personal values masquerading as right and wrong. " Though I love free markets, I do support government run university education with less fees for this particular reason. I come from India where we have many government run universities. You have to score good marks in the entrance tests to get into them. But I have seen plenty of people from poor families make it to these universities because they want it more than the others. The whole point of it is that even kids from poorer families can dream about these opportunities and work hard towards it. Every year, the local newspapers will have headlines about how teens living in a hut made it to these top universities. Even many of the kids who don't make it to those universities but tried for them would have built enough knowledge and hard working ethics that will take them to places in their future. And when I say government subsidised education, I mean education that actually gets people jobs. Not some random degree that no one cares about. This way, the government is not wasting money, but is investing in its population who will pay it back in the form of taxes. The society also becomes more optimistic in the longer run. | |||
| |||
"I find centrist politics akin to asking a coach of 50 people where shall the coach stop for evening dinner. 30 centrists say "Don't mind, really". 10 others want Chinese. 10 want an Indian. Great. Just super. So we now have 30+10 for Chinese, or 30+10 for Indian. I think my overall impression of centrism is that lacks conviction. It's insipid. It functions on inertia. Societies do not thrive or grow in inertia. They stagnate and atrophy. I don't see a viable place for centrism in a modern, progressive and ever changing world, where we've got to make firm decisions, and sometimes very fast. This is why centrists will always be left behind by those at the ends of the political spectrum. And I am happy with that, because if you are not prepared to stand up and put your head above the parapet for what you believe in, then what you believe in isn't worth standing up for, is it ? " I think that is a fair and often used criticism. Although I would counter that with pragmatism vs ideology. In your scenario what would really happen is some of the centrists would say chinese, some would say indian, some would say they know about this international buffet where you can get both (and while not as good as the actual chinese or indian restaurants, the place they know is still pretty good), and there will one smart arse who will say “what about Thai as you get the chinese ingredients with indian spices?” | |||
"I find centrist politics akin to asking a coach of 50 people where shall the coach stop for evening dinner. 30 centrists say "Don't mind, really". 10 others want Chinese. 10 want an Indian. Great. Just super. So we now have 30+10 for Chinese, or 30+10 for Indian. I think my overall impression of centrism is that lacks conviction. It's insipid. It functions on inertia. Societies do not thrive or grow in inertia. They stagnate and atrophy. I don't see a viable place for centrism in a modern, progressive and ever changing world, where we've got to make firm decisions, and sometimes very fast. This is why centrists will always be left behind by those at the ends of the political spectrum. And I am happy with that, because if you are not prepared to stand up and put your head above the parapet for what you believe in, then what you believe in isn't worth standing up for, is it ? I think that is a fair and often used criticism. Although I would counter that with pragmatism vs ideology. In your scenario what would really happen is some of the centrists would say chinese, some would say indian, some would say they know about this international buffet where you can get both (and while not as good as the actual chinese or indian restaurants, the place they know is still pretty good), and there will one smart arse who will say “what about Thai as you get the chinese ingredients with indian spices?”" The point made by the left wing poster is all our way or no way, which is not as democratic as they think they are… you can tell the type and they reside on both sides of the divide, they spout spurious crap about anyone not thinking like them as brainwashed and not understanding the wider picture. I’m happy cherry picking what I feel is good and what I feel is not so, that is how change is made within the big 2 and plenty of examples of that exist. | |||
"I find centrist politics akin to asking a coach of 50 people where shall the coach stop for evening dinner. 30 centrists say "Don't mind, really". 10 others want Chinese. 10 want an Indian. Great. Just super. So we now have 30+10 for Chinese, or 30+10 for Indian. I think my overall impression of centrism is that lacks conviction. It's insipid. It functions on inertia. Societies do not thrive or grow in inertia. They stagnate and atrophy. I don't see a viable place for centrism in a modern, progressive and ever changing world, where we've got to make firm decisions, and sometimes very fast. This is why centrists will always be left behind by those at the ends of the political spectrum. And I am happy with that, because if you are not prepared to stand up and put your head above the parapet for what you believe in, then what you believe in isn't worth standing up for, is it ? I think that is a fair and often used criticism. Although I would counter that with pragmatism vs ideology. In your scenario what would really happen is some of the centrists would say chinese, some would say indian, some would say they know about this international buffet where you can get both (and while not as good as the actual chinese or indian restaurants, the place they know is still pretty good), and there will one smart arse who will say “what about Thai as you get the chinese ingredients with indian spices?” The point made by the left wing poster is all our way or no way, which is not as democratic as they think they are… you can tell the type and they reside on both sides of the divide, they spout spurious crap about anyone not thinking like them as brainwashed and not understanding the wider picture. I’m happy cherry picking what I feel is good and what I feel is not so, that is how change is made within the big 2 and plenty of examples of that exist. " Who is this “left wing poster”? | |||
"I find centrist politics akin to asking a coach of 50 people where shall the coach stop for evening dinner. 30 centrists say "Don't mind, really". 10 others want Chinese. 10 want an Indian. Great. Just super. So we now have 30+10 for Chinese, or 30+10 for Indian. I think my overall impression of centrism is that lacks conviction. It's insipid. It functions on inertia. Societies do not thrive or grow in inertia. They stagnate and atrophy. I don't see a viable place for centrism in a modern, progressive and ever changing world, where we've got to make firm decisions, and sometimes very fast. This is why centrists will always be left behind by those at the ends of the political spectrum. And I am happy with that, because if you are not prepared to stand up and put your head above the parapet for what you believe in, then what you believe in isn't worth standing up for, is it ? " It looks like you seriously misunderstood what centrism means. Centrists are people who don't like ideological dogma. We don't believe any single ideology is perfect. But we do take stance on individual issues. While we can take middle ground in some issues like taxation, we do take clear stance on certain other issues. We do stand up for certain issues too. Majority of people are centrists. It's only in the modern world when religion and nationalism are losing grounds that more and more people are choosing political ideologies as a replacement to satisfy their inner tribalism. Human societies are complex. It's lazy to think that a single ideology is a magic pill to solve all the problems. | |||
"It looks like you seriously misunderstood what centrism means. Centrists are people who don't like ideological dogma." I think centrism itself IS an ideological dogma. All 'ism's are. "We don't believe any single ideology is perfect. But we do take stance on individual issues. While we can take middle ground in some issues like taxation, we do take clear stance on certain other issues. We do stand up for certain issues too." I agree and see your point. I just wish centrists would make it more louder and more forcefully. They are getting drowned out by the noise of their companions on the left and the right. " Majority of people are centrists. It's only in the modern world when religion and nationalism are losing grounds that more and more people are choosing political ideologies as a replacement to satisfy their inner tribalism. Human societies are complex. It's lazy to think that a single ideology is a magic pill to solve all the problems." In a fast-changing world with a population not generally schooled in the finer points of political discourse, there is little time or ability to delve deep in to the decision-making our forebears practiced in the past. Messaging needs to be simple and complex issues boiled down to simple choices. Granted, it means choosing the "best fit", accepting that there will be some warts and all along the way. But the Age of Nuance is dead. | |||
"I find centrist politics akin to asking a coach of 50 people where shall the coach stop for evening dinner. 30 centrists say "Don't mind, really". 10 others want Chinese. 10 want an Indian. Great. Just super. So we now have 30+10 for Chinese, or 30+10 for Indian. I think my overall impression of centrism is that lacks conviction. It's insipid. It functions on inertia. Societies do not thrive or grow in inertia. They stagnate and atrophy. I don't see a viable place for centrism in a modern, progressive and ever changing world, where we've got to make firm decisions, and sometimes very fast. This is why centrists will always be left behind by those at the ends of the political spectrum. And I am happy with that, because if you are not prepared to stand up and put your head above the parapet for what you believe in, then what you believe in isn't worth standing up for, is it ? " Oh dear. | |||
"It looks like you seriously misunderstood what centrism means. Centrists are people who don't like ideological dogma. I think centrism itself IS an ideological dogma. All 'ism's are. We don't believe any single ideology is perfect. But we do take stance on individual issues. While we can take middle ground in some issues like taxation, we do take clear stance on certain other issues. We do stand up for certain issues too. I agree and see your point. I just wish centrists would make it more louder and more forcefully. They are getting drowned out by the noise of their companions on the left and the right. Majority of people are centrists. It's only in the modern world when religion and nationalism are losing grounds that more and more people are choosing political ideologies as a replacement to satisfy their inner tribalism. Human societies are complex. It's lazy to think that a single ideology is a magic pill to solve all the problems. In a fast-changing world with a population not generally schooled in the finer points of political discourse, there is little time or ability to delve deep in to the decision-making our forebears practiced in the past. Messaging needs to be simple and complex issues boiled down to simple choices. Granted, it means choosing the "best fit", accepting that there will be some warts and all along the way. But the Age of Nuance is dead. " You mean "simple choices" like far right and far left, both of which has killed millions of people? No thanks! I will stick to centrism and hopefully most of the population remain centrist. | |||
| |||
