FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should Inheritance Tax be scrapped?
Should Inheritance Tax be scrapped?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps have rules where no tax is paid if leaving to a family relative." Pretty sure nothing is payable if left to your spouse but I too would extend that to children and grandchildren (ie direct descendants), ie people who at one time were dependent on you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe?" £325k isn't even average Joe's house where I live. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem with making property exempt is that the ultra wealthy would plough all their money into property and further exacerbate existing problems. (A limit on property ownership could resolve this, and also remove buy-to-let corporations from further ruining the property market)" Which is why I said primary/family home not property empire or holiday home(s). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem with making property exempt is that the ultra wealthy would plough all their money into property and further exacerbate existing problems. (A limit on property ownership could resolve this, and also remove buy-to-let corporations from further ruining the property market) Which is why I said primary/family home not property empire or holiday home(s)."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe?" Or you live in London or parts of the South East where £325k is small beer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. " I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe?" Combine those two figures and you may get a four bed in the village I live. Bootlicking doesn’t come into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. " I would. I used the word punitive to be polite. Government taking almost half of someones wealth on death could easily be described as theft. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. I would. I used the word punitive to be polite. Government taking almost half of someones wealth on death could easily be described as theft." They have the option to spend it. It’s not like nobody knows about IHT. We should stop wealthy families hoarding money if we want a thriving economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. " Sorry FunFella but I would. Why should it be 40%? Why is that the right number? Why doesn’t IHT align with CGT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. Sorry FunFella but I would. Why should it be 40%? Why is that the right number? Why doesn’t IHT align with CGT?" Oh we’re discussing IHT specifically here, but I’d welcome changes across all taxation, including income tax. If we want strong services and also to fund things like a renewable energy and efficient transport network, we have to fund it somehow. Unearned wealth shouldn’t be free from necessary changes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes but if that cannot happen then the threshold needs to rise to reflect inflation and specifically house price inflation. In fact scrap that, the primary (family) home should be exempt and not be part of the threshold. People have seen the value of their home increase after purchasing it through post tax net income that serviced mortgage debt and also paid for stamp duty and VAT on any home improvements (that increased value of the home) and should be allowed to pass that entirely to their children." Yes prity much agree but if this was the case the limit could be reduced from £500,000 with a property per person to an easy £250,000 per person | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. I would. I used the word punitive to be polite. Government taking almost half of someones wealth on death could easily be described as theft. They have the option to spend it. It’s not like nobody knows about IHT. We should stop wealthy families hoarding money if we want a thriving economy. " The Duke of Westminster inherited a £9bn fortune from father. Apparently he paid £0/nothing in IHT (I say apparently as this is what I read, can’t prove it - for those in the cheap seats). The reason this is possible is that the super wealthy have access to all manner of tax avoidance opportunities. That includes trust funds (on and offshore), holding assets via offshore (tax haven) company, and simply incorporating the estate so it is not a personal asset. The people who are paying IHT are the upper middle income folks who have generally benefitted from house prices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. I would. I used the word punitive to be polite. Government taking almost half of someones wealth on death could easily be described as theft. They have the option to spend it. It’s not like nobody knows about IHT. We should stop wealthy families hoarding money if we want a thriving economy. The Duke of Westminster inherited a £9bn fortune from father. Apparently he paid £0/nothing in IHT (I say apparently as this is what I read, can’t prove it - for those in the cheap seats). The reason this is possible is that the super wealthy have access to all manner of tax avoidance opportunities. That includes trust funds (on and offshore), holding assets via offshore (tax haven) company, and simply incorporating the estate so it is not a personal asset. The people who are paying IHT are the upper middle income folks who have generally benefitted from house prices." I agree that loopholes have to be tightened. It’s scandalous that the Uber-wealthy have means of avoiding tax that others don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. " So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. I would. I used the word punitive to be polite. Government taking almost half of someones wealth on death could easily be described as theft. They have the option to spend it. It’s not like nobody knows about IHT. We should stop wealthy families hoarding money if we want a thriving economy. " How would you spend the home you are living in or the privet pension you are living off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe? Or you live in London or parts of the South East where £325k is small beer." But its not 325 its 500k per parent so £1m not many homes are that much where the recipiant is reliant on that income. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scrapped? maybe or maybe not. But serious reform is well overdue. I don't believe the line that it is only the super rich who would benefit from reforming it. Most don't pay it (or very little of it) anyway. Offshore trust funds, offshore company's Etc can keep much of their wealth out of the taxman's reach. Maybe by reducing the rate from the current punitive 40% to a much fairer 20% would make those avoidance schemes less attractive and would actually increase the total tax take. Just a thought. Also the family home should be taken out of inheritance tax altogether as long as it is left to direct decedents. The £500,000 threshold isn't a lot if you own a house in London or the south east. So I think quite a few "average Joe's" would seriously benefit. I’d not describe 40% as punitive or close to it. I would. I used the word punitive to be polite. Government taking almost half of someones wealth on death could easily be described as theft. They have the option to spend it. It’s not like nobody knows about IHT. We should stop wealthy families hoarding money if we want a thriving economy. How would you spend the home you are living in or the privet pension you are living off. " That’s why I said that homes shouldn’t form part of IHT (though additional properties should - and if go further on restricting the amount of property an individual can own). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers?" Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. " VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As many know, I am for redistribution of wealth. Which on theory IHT does, and only kicks in for c 4pc of the population. (And my understanding is that a husband and wife would create a combined total allowance of £1m which is a good amount for any house) I do understand the current IHT may struggle to fully capture all people with large estates. That's poor tax rules and not a reason why I'd just give up. I'm not close enough to all the detail to know how people use trust etc to minimise IHT. I don't but the "I've already paid tax on income argument". Most income is taxed multiple times. It also contradicts the idea I'm getting penalised house going up in value. That's gain is not being taxed twice. One interesting idea Ive seen is treating the estate as being earnt by the beneficiaries and taxed as income. You may have earned this income and been added on it. However your beneficiaries haven't been taxed on their new income. One could apply some kind of factor here to say that this is more like income over ten years than a bonus. Eg inherit £100k. This is treated as 10 lots of £10k income. And so if I have full personal allowance this means 10x nil. If I'm higher, that's 10x 40pc of £10k. I know ppl won't like this as they don't like IHT because they want the very best for their kids even if the rich kid down the road gets an even better deal and so the gap between kids actually widens. " Interesting thoughts but no I don’t like it 
I think fewer people would be against IHT with a higher threshold and certainly if primary home was exempt.
At the moment if I buy a home with my net income (paying interest on a mortgage) and then spend more of my net income improving that home (extension, new kitchen/bathroom, better decor, all of which sees me paying VAT) it will increase in value. Why aren’t those costs offset against the value of the estste? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe? Or you live in London or parts of the South East where £325k is small beer." So not average then! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. " How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided " If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe? Or you live in London or parts of the South East where £325k is small beer. So not average then!" Property is such a variable in this London 1m won't get you a flat, in Hastings would get you a good 4 bedroom house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current threshold is £325,000, or £500,000 if your house is left to your direct descendant(s), before tax would kick in anyway. How much of a bootlicker would you have to be to believe that scrapping it is beneficial to your average Joe? Or you live in London or parts of the South East where £325k is small beer. So not average then!" Which would make an argument for regional differences! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth." That I get but the millionaire also pays very little in other tax Where the person on 50k a year is paying much more then the top and the minimum wage earner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. " I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. That I get but the millionaire also pays very little in other tax Where the person on 50k a year is paying much more then the top and the minimum wage earner." We should have listened to Mr Corbyn…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth." So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. " So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all." I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. " I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As many know, I am for redistribution of wealth. Which on theory IHT does, and only kicks in for c 4pc of the population. (And my understanding is that a husband and wife would create a combined total allowance of £1m which is a good amount for any house) I do understand the current IHT may struggle to fully capture all people with large estates. That's poor tax rules and not a reason why I'd just give up. I'm not close enough to all the detail to know how people use trust etc to minimise IHT. I don't but the "I've already paid tax on income argument". Most income is taxed multiple times. It also contradicts the idea I'm getting penalised house going up in value. That's gain is not being taxed twice. One interesting idea Ive seen is treating the estate as being earnt by the beneficiaries and taxed as income. You may have earned this income and been added on it. However your beneficiaries haven't been taxed on their new income. One could apply some kind of factor here to say that this is more like income over ten years than a bonus. Eg inherit £100k. This is treated as 10 lots of £10k income. And so if I have full personal allowance this means 10x nil. If I'm higher, that's 10x 40pc of £10k. I know ppl won't like this as they don't like IHT because they want the very best for their kids even if the rich kid down the road gets an even better deal and so the gap between kids actually widens. Interesting thoughts but no I don’t like it
I think fewer people would be against IHT with a higher threshold and certainly if primary home was exempt.
At the moment if I buy a home with my net income (paying interest on a mortgage) and then spend more of my net income improving that home (extension, new kitchen/bathroom, better decor, all of which sees me paying VAT) it will increase in value. Why aren’t those costs offset against the value of the estste?"the trouble with primary property being exempt is that I buy a 10m house when I'm 80 to avoid iht. I do get your point tho. Although i may counter by saying why is tej primary property seen as being special ? We are long past family homes. Chances are the house you are in at 90 is not the house your kids grew up in. I'd definitely have carve outs if someone was living at the home at point of death with some rules to ensure no gaming. I'd certainly not want anyone to a forced seller of a house they live in. But the main reason I see for having any carve out for primary home is to allign with cgt. Again not trying to convince. Not do I necessarily believe in the detail. But putting out alternative views just to encourage debate given most ppl are pro the policy. Even if it is blue. And brought in by a multi millionaire. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. " They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…." They pay more tax overall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. " But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lots of rich people have a business so can re claim VAT its often difficult to tell what is a business expense & what is private spending. if you have a fuel receipt was that fuel used on business or for private use? " Not just “rich people” but plumbers, electricians, plasterers etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? " It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? " Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further?" Because we need funding for vital services and ‘levelling up’ (remember that?) How are we to fund it? Ask the poor to pony up even more? Increase wealth disparity further? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. " If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. " VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further? Because we need funding for vital services and ‘levelling up’ (remember that?) How are we to fund it? Ask the poor to pony up even more? Increase wealth disparity further?" No! Just close tax loopholes for individuals and businesses and make companies pay tax in the country where revenues are generated. The issue isn’t a need to put in place more ways to collect tax, the issue is collecting all the tax that should be collected in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further? Because we need funding for vital services and ‘levelling up’ (remember that?) How are we to fund it? Ask the poor to pony up even more? Increase wealth disparity further?" I have called for the poor to pay more. You're calling for the rich to be punished. That's not fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. " In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way." There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further? Because we need funding for vital services and ‘levelling up’ (remember that?) How are we to fund it? Ask the poor to pony up even more? Increase wealth disparity further? I have called for the poor to pay more. You're calling for the rich to be punished. That's not fair. " Taxation on unearned wealth isn’t punishment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’?" But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further? Because we need funding for vital services and ‘levelling up’ (remember that?) How are we to fund it? Ask the poor to pony up even more? Increase wealth disparity further? I have called for the poor to pay more. You're calling for the rich to be punished. That's not fair. Taxation on unearned wealth isn’t punishment. " Not in your eyes it isn't. In my eyes it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair?" I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income?" Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children." Their parents *may have* earned it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an aside, if my parents try to leave anything to me I’ll be fucking livid. It’s their money and I expect them to enjoy every last penny of it. " never usually agree with you but on this rare occasion I do I argue with my parents about this they have 25 grand put away for there funerals but sit at home in blankets tell them go enjoy your money leave it to us to deal with things when it's time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an aside, if my parents try to leave anything to me I’ll be fucking livid. It’s their money and I expect them to enjoy every last penny of it. never usually agree with you but on this rare occasion I do I argue with my parents about this they have 25 grand put away for there funerals but sit at home in blankets tell them go enjoy your money leave it to us to deal with things when it's time." Mine have been talking about visiting Australia for decades. Me: “You’re retired, you’ve got the money. FFS just GO!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. " Of course you can. To quote myself... "But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes." Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper." Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. " We cut services to the bone already without reducing VAT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. We cut services to the bone already without reducing VAT. " As you keep telling us. You don't think they'll get even worse if we cut VAT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. We cut services to the bone already without reducing VAT. As you keep telling us. You don't think they'll get even worse if we cut VAT?" Not if the shortfall is made up by non-regressive means as I outlined earlier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. We cut services to the bone already without reducing VAT. As you keep telling us. You don't think they'll get even worse if we cut VAT? Not if the shortfall is made up by non-regressive means as I outlined earlier. " That's just a fantasy pipedream. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. We cut services to the bone already without reducing VAT. As you keep telling us. You don't think they'll get even worse if we cut VAT? Not if the shortfall is made up by non-regressive means as I outlined earlier. That's just a fantasy pipedream. " Oh I agree, there’s too many wealthy people with influence, and far too many people who vote against their own interests for any meaningful change to occur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. " It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. " Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children." So we earned our pay and were taxed on it so shops we spend it at shouldnt have to pay any tax on their profits? As that moneh has aleady been taxed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. " No, that's something you've made up as far as I can see unless you know the price of every property and that all the home owners own their homes outright and don't have any outstanding mortgage. I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either. I can maybe help though by looking up some actual facts and I've found that the average house price in the UK is around £290,000, so already much lower than the inheritance tax threshold. If everyone in your town owns a house worth more than that then yes that means you are 'winning' because you too are above average using that particular measure. That's aside, I'm not sure how any of that progresses your point or negates mine.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. No, that's something you've made up as far as I can see unless you know the price of every property and that all the home owners own their homes outright and don't have any outstanding mortgage. I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either. I can maybe help though by looking up some actual facts and I've found that the average house price in the UK is around £290,000, so already much lower than the inheritance tax threshold. If everyone in your town owns a house worth more than that then yes that means you are 'winning' because you too are above average using that particular measure. That's aside, I'm not sure how any of that progresses your point or negates mine. "I can promise you, you will not find an average family home in my town for the 'average'. Of course there are mortgages but the likelihood is that by the time most people pass those mortgages won't be there. So yes, in my town, IHT threshold will be hit and tax paid on it on any family home. I'm pretty damn sure that most families in my town are average Joe's. There are of course wealthy people but you wanted to speak about average Joe's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. " Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. " Thank you for agreeing VAT can't be avoided but income TAX can be avoided If you really want to and can afford it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system." Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As many know, I am for redistribution of wealth. Which on theory IHT does, and only kicks in for c 4pc of the population. (And my understanding is that a husband and wife would create a combined total allowance of £1m which is a good amount for any house) I do understand the current IHT may struggle to fully capture all people with large estates. That's poor tax rules and not a reason why I'd just give up. I'm not close enough to all the detail to know how people use trust etc to minimise IHT. I don't but the "I've already paid tax on income argument". Most income is taxed multiple times. It also contradicts the idea I'm getting penalised house going up in value. That's gain is not being taxed twice. One interesting idea Ive seen is treating the estate as being earnt by the beneficiaries and taxed as income. You may have earned this income and been added on it. However your beneficiaries haven't been taxed on their new income. One could apply some kind of factor here to say that this is more like income over ten years than a bonus. Eg inherit £100k. This is treated as 10 lots of £10k income. And so if I have full personal allowance this means 10x nil. If I'm higher, that's 10x 40pc of £10k. I know ppl won't like this as they don't like IHT because they want the very best for their kids even if the rich kid down the road gets an even better deal and so the gap between kids actually widens. Interesting thoughts but no I don’t like it
I think fewer people would be against IHT with a higher threshold and certainly if primary home was exempt.
At the moment if I buy a home with my net income (paying interest on a mortgage) and then spend more of my net income improving that home (extension, new kitchen/bathroom, better decor, all of which sees me paying VAT) it will increase in value. Why aren’t those costs offset against the value of the estste?the trouble with primary property being exempt is that I buy a 10m house when I'm 80 to avoid iht.
I do get your point tho. Although i may counter by saying why is tej primary property seen as being special ? We are long past family homes. Chances are the house you are in at 90 is not the house your kids grew up in.
I'd definitely have carve outs if someone was living at the home at point of death with some rules to ensure no gaming. I'd certainly not want anyone to a forced seller of a house they live in.
But the main reason I see for having any carve out for primary home is to allign with cgt.
Again not trying to convince. Not do I necessarily believe in the detail. But putting out alternative views just to encourage debate given most ppl are pro the policy. Even if it is blue. And brought in by a multi millionaire. "This is such a good point so the billionaire will just have a bigger property to pass down any way. This sort of thing really only effects the top of the middle wealth probably 1m to 10m in total assets as a couple. Gold is the best thing buy it and it tracks inflation but if its in the safe HMRC can't see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. No, that's something you've made up as far as I can see unless you know the price of every property and that all the home owners own their homes outright and don't have any outstanding mortgage. I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either. I can maybe help though by looking up some actual facts and I've found that the average house price in the UK is around £290,000, so already much lower than the inheritance tax threshold. If everyone in your town owns a house worth more than that then yes that means you are 'winning' because you too are above average using that particular measure. That's aside, I'm not sure how any of that progresses your point or negates mine.
I can promise you, you will not find an average family home in my town for the 'average'. Of course there are mortgages but the likelihood is that by the time most people pass those mortgages won't be there.
So yes, in my town, IHT threshold will be hit and tax paid on it on any family home.
I'm pretty damn sure that most families in my town are average Joe's. There are of course wealthy people but you wanted to speak about average Joe's. "I honestly can't see where you're going with this. I've literally told you the average inheritance passed down by a UK citizen is £11,000 and that the average house price is £289,000. That's what we're using as an average for 'average Joe', not whatever arbitrary measurement of the term 'average' that you are using. Just because you are unaware that a lot of people around the country aren't even home owners at all let alone that they might 'only' own a £289,000 property. There is a world outside your own town (and knowledge)! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario?" Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lots of rich people have a business so can re claim VAT its often difficult to tell what is a business expense & what is private spending. if you have a fuel receipt was that fuel used on business or for private use? " Same as the window cleaner, taxis drivers, hair desrees and small shop owners all get cash do they declare all of it??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. No, that's something you've made up as far as I can see unless you know the price of every property and that all the home owners own their homes outright and don't have any outstanding mortgage. I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either. I can maybe help though by looking up some actual facts and I've found that the average house price in the UK is around £290,000, so already much lower than the inheritance tax threshold. If everyone in your town owns a house worth more than that then yes that means you are 'winning' because you too are above average using that particular measure. That's aside, I'm not sure how any of that progresses your point or negates mine.
I can promise you, you will not find an average family home in my town for the 'average'. Of course there are mortgages but the likelihood is that by the time most people pass those mortgages won't be there.
So yes, in my town, IHT threshold will be hit and tax paid on it on any family home.
I'm pretty damn sure that most families in my town are average Joe's. There are of course wealthy people but you wanted to speak about average Joe's.
I honestly can't see where you're going with this. I've literally told you the average inheritance passed down by a UK citizen is £11,000 and that the average house price is £289,000. That's what we're using as an average for 'average Joe', not whatever arbitrary measurement of the term 'average' that you are using.
Just because you are unaware that a lot of people around the country aren't even home owners at all let alone that they might 'only' own a £289,000 property. There is a world outside your own town (and knowledge)! "I'm defintely not unaware of anything. You've just told me there's a world outside of my own town. That's the whole point, your average is very much didn't to the average in the south. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? " As a % yes the same as someone earning 100k pays more income tax. But what dose this person in you head buy that thay are paying all this vat on because I very much dought its a new car. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. No, that's something you've made up as far as I can see unless you know the price of every property and that all the home owners own their homes outright and don't have any outstanding mortgage. I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either. I can maybe help though by looking up some actual facts and I've found that the average house price in the UK is around £290,000, so already much lower than the inheritance tax threshold. If everyone in your town owns a house worth more than that then yes that means you are 'winning' because you too are above average using that particular measure. That's aside, I'm not sure how any of that progresses your point or negates mine.
I can promise you, you will not find an average family home in my town for the 'average'. Of course there are mortgages but the likelihood is that by the time most people pass those mortgages won't be there.
So yes, in my town, IHT threshold will be hit and tax paid on it on any family home.
I'm pretty damn sure that most families in my town are average Joe's. There are of course wealthy people but you wanted to speak about average Joe's. "there always going to be some difference of opinion of an average Joe and Jo are in a £1m house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. " Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? As a % yes the same as someone earning 100k pays more income tax. But what dose this person in you head buy that thay are paying all this vat on because I very much dought its a new car." It doesn’t matter what they’re spending it on - the poor pay a greater percentage of their income on VAT than the wealthy. That’s not opinion, it’s a fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. " I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’?" Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. " Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Punish is an emotional word. If VAT is being seen as fair as it's a flat number, I wonder if the forum could get behind income tax of 30pc on the first dollar as well as the last. Maybe we could say let's do a flat 50pc and scrap iht and vat and CGT. " I'm open to listening to fair reforms, I'm not open to what I see as punishment for earning more. Maybe it is an emotional word but I don't have a better one for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? It really doesn't matter whether I agree on VAT or not. The fact remains that the rich already pay quite a bit more in taxes than the poor. Why punish them further? Because we need funding for vital services and ‘levelling up’ (remember that?) How are we to fund it? Ask the poor to pony up even more? Increase wealth disparity further? No! Just close tax loopholes for individuals and businesses and make companies pay tax in the country where revenues are generated. The issue isn’t a need to put in place more ways to collect tax, the issue is collecting all the tax that should be collected in the first place." Agree but how?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.." Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children." Scrap it and I'll put my house in my kids name so you can't TAX it when I go ??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. " Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. " That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. VAT is already zero on a lot of food and very low on energy. As for clothing, I guarantee the rich pay more VAT on clothing than the poor. In absolute terms of course. In proportional terms absolutely no way. There is no way to do it proportionally. I'm speaking in absolute terms. Isn't that the argument? How do we raise more? Punish the rich. Of course you can. To quote myself... But that is consumerism rather than “essentialism” You don’t NEED a better car or bigger TV or the best phone. You do NEED food, energy and clothes. Remove VAT from those and it helps poorer people by making essentials cheaper. Removing the VAT from those items will have a positive impact for all. Except the poor when we have to cut services because of a loss of tax take. " No I'd be OK with removing VAT on all essentials and upping it on top end items my new Range Rover only had 20% Vat on it I would still have purchased it if VAT was 30% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. " No I'd say TAX the rich on spending but the rich will shop over sea but with a weak pound its hard to make it work. Even christian louboutin shoes in the USA are expensive at the moment.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'." Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. " How when the rich don't pay income tax anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. How when the rich don't pay income tax anyway." Only because loopholes don’t get closed. The whole system needs testing up and starting over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ " But how do you measure individual impact? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I honestly can't see where you're going with this. I've literally told you the average inheritance passed down by a UK citizen is £11,000 and that the average house price is £289,000. That's what we're using as an average for 'average Joe', not whatever arbitrary measurement of the term 'average' that you are using. Just because you are unaware that a lot of people around the country aren't even home owners at all let alone that they might 'only' own a £289,000 property. There is a world outside your own town (and knowledge)!
I'm defintely not unaware of anything.
You've just told me there's a world outside of my own town. That's the whole point, your average is very much didn't to the average in the south.
"What? I've already given you the frame of reference for my usage of the term 'Average Joe' - someone owning a £289,000 property and who passes on £11,000 inheritance. It was me that made the original statement of an Average Joe and I've given you the context on a plate - it's the average person in the country based on the above. Your meaning of 'average' seems to be in the 'C1/2 normal, car-owning, home-owning bloke who keeps himself to himself' sense. I get that in different places 'average' can be different but the inheritance tax would be applied nationwide so the discussion needs to be expanded to cover the whole country and about who benefits from its scrapping - people who are WAY above average in the financial sense; and those who wouldn't - everyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. So are you saying that every single home owner in my town is above average? Fuck me, I'm winning. No, that's something you've made up as far as I can see unless you know the price of every property and that all the home owners own their homes outright and don't have any outstanding mortgage. I have no idea and I'm guessing you don't either. I can maybe help though by looking up some actual facts and I've found that the average house price in the UK is around £290,000, so already much lower than the inheritance tax threshold. If everyone in your town owns a house worth more than that then yes that means you are 'winning' because you too are above average using that particular measure. That's aside, I'm not sure how any of that progresses your point or negates mine.
I can promise you, you will not find an average family home in my town for the 'average'. Of course there are mortgages but the likelihood is that by the time most people pass those mortgages won't be there.
So yes, in my town, IHT threshold will be hit and tax paid on it on any family home.
I'm pretty damn sure that most families in my town are average Joe's. There are of course wealthy people but you wanted to speak about average Joe's.
I honestly can't see where you're going with this. I've literally told you the average inheritance passed down by a UK citizen is £11,000 and that the average house price is £289,000. That's what we're using as an average for 'average Joe', not whatever arbitrary measurement of the term 'average' that you are using.
Just because you are unaware that a lot of people around the country aren't even home owners at all let alone that they might 'only' own a £289,000 property. There is a world outside your own town (and knowledge)! "I would say it's most home owners that this affects any city will be above that and most of the south is well above that £290k mark.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. " So you would be happy for an electrician to earn cash and not have to pay any tax on it HAPPY DAYS.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. So you would be happy for an electrician to earn cash and not have to pay any tax on it HAPPY DAYS.. "Are you suggesting that I support tax-evasion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact?" The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. " So I try to do 100 hours a week to give me 100k a year as a self employed electrician. Anyone can better them self and work harder. But as you say I do OK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. How when the rich don't pay income tax anyway. Only because loopholes don’t get closed. The whole system needs testing up and starting over." Can you explain how to close all the loopholes I don't think I use any loop holes. But help me out and let me know them I might try. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. So I try to do 100 hours a week to give me 100k a year as a self employed electrician. Anyone can better them self and work harder. But as you say I do OK." Good for you. I work far less than that and earn not much less. I never forget that I’m one of the lucky ones. Plenty of people work harder than you or I and don’t see any reward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. How when the rich don't pay income tax anyway. Only because loopholes don’t get closed. The whole system needs testing up and starting over. Can you explain how to close all the loopholes I don't think I use any loop holes. But help me out and let me know them I might try." Sorry, I’m not about to assist anyone in paying less tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. So you would be happy for an electrician to earn cash and not have to pay any tax on it HAPPY DAYS..
Are you suggesting that I support tax-evasion?
"No I would not say that but if I did a job for you would you ask for a cash price? Or have you ever gone can you do it better for cash. Do you ever pay cash and not ask for a receipt say at a pub In a restaurant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prior to The E U Referendum , Conservative MPs wrote an article in The Sun urging people to vote "leave" as we could then abolish VAT on domestic fuel bills , that was in 2016 , since that date there has always been a Conservative Government , we are still being charged VAT on our gas & electric but it appears that getting rid of inheritance tax appears to be a more urgent priority , " The tories LOVE regressive taxes like VAT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. So you would be happy for an electrician to earn cash and not have to pay any tax on it HAPPY DAYS..
Are you suggesting that I support tax-evasion?
No I would not say that but if I did a job for you would you ask for a cash price? Or have you ever gone can you do it better for cash.
Do you ever pay cash and not ask for a receipt say at a pub In a restaurant."I’ve never asked someone for a ‘cash price’, no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Up to 70% tax on income (£100-125k, 47% over 130k), top rate of 15% to buy a new home, up to 28% on investments (bought with taxed income), 21% on purchases (much higher 'luxury' taxes), dumb limitations on my pension contributions, no allowances (child, nursery, interest etc. all snatched away) and you pay for family's health and education. On top of this the government wanted 40% of ones assets at death, nope, leave the country for a much more favourable tax regime. UHNWI can avoid these taxes, anyone striving for wealth gets overly-clobbered and the uk is much too dependent on this group's contribution." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do." You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prior to The E U Referendum , Conservative MPs wrote an article in The Sun urging people to vote "leave" as we could then abolish VAT on domestic fuel bills , that was in 2016 , since that date there has always been a Conservative Government , we are still being charged VAT on our gas & electric but it appears that getting rid of inheritance tax appears to be a more urgent priority , " well put am with you even if the cut it as a % the government are getting a wind fall now with the cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. " That’s because you don’t believe that those who earn more should pay more, and seem to think I’m advocating the same. I’m not. I said “ I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system” I support increasing tax bands. I don’t support anything ridiculous like 90% tax rates, but I do believe that those who earn more should pay more. And I say that as a higher rate tax payer myself. Those who earn more can shoulder a greater burden without suffering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. That’s because you don’t believe that those who earn more should pay more, and seem to think I’m advocating the same. I’m not. I said “ I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system” I support increasing tax bands. I don’t support anything ridiculous like 90% tax rates, but I do believe that those who earn more should pay more. And I say that as a higher rate tax payer myself. Those who earn more can shoulder a greater burden without suffering." As I said before, they already do pay more tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. That’s because you don’t believe that those who earn more should pay more, and seem to think I’m advocating the same. I’m not. I said “ I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system” I support increasing tax bands. I don’t support anything ridiculous like 90% tax rates, but I do believe that those who earn more should pay more. And I say that as a higher rate tax payer myself. Those who earn more can shoulder a greater burden without suffering. As I said before, they already do pay more tax. " Then if we’re not going to be radical about this, we need to close loopholes, stop stupid ideas like cutting out inheritance tax, and examine whether existing tax bands are fit for purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. That’s because you don’t believe that those who earn more should pay more, and seem to think I’m advocating the same. I’m not. I said “ I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system” I support increasing tax bands. I don’t support anything ridiculous like 90% tax rates, but I do believe that those who earn more should pay more. And I say that as a higher rate tax payer myself. Those who earn more can shoulder a greater burden without suffering. As I said before, they already do pay more tax. Then if we’re not going to be radical about this, we need to close loopholes, stop stupid ideas like cutting out inheritance tax, and examine whether existing tax bands are fit for purpose. " I agree we need to close loopholes. That'll fix the shortfall if we scrap VAT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children. So we earned our pay and were taxed on it so shops we spend it at shouldnt have to pay any tax on their profits? As that moneh has aleady been taxed?" Some would argue that (not me because it doesn’t only apply to individuals) but you have just proven the point. We buy our homes from post tax net income. We then improve our homes paying VAT on services and products. The estate (home) increases in value due to improvements. Why should that then be taxed a third time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. That’s because you don’t believe that those who earn more should pay more, and seem to think I’m advocating the same. I’m not. I said “ I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system” I support increasing tax bands. I don’t support anything ridiculous like 90% tax rates, but I do believe that those who earn more should pay more. And I say that as a higher rate tax payer myself. Those who earn more can shoulder a greater burden without suffering." I agree tax the rich more but my point is the cash economy is still strong. How would you tax it. You said you have never asked for a cash price I can expect that! But do you know when you spend cash it's going in to someone's accounts you know the guy that cleans the car, the daily that you leave the cash on the side to clean the house the barber's the pint Down the pub. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quotes are getting long so starting again. If we are helping the poor with reducing taxes for them, how do we do that whilst not punishing the rich? I here Birldn, I agree with him that if we collected the tax we should then there's no need to punish rich individuals. That's the only way it can work, I'm not in favour of playing Robin Hood. It’s not the only way it can work. We’re just unwilling to rock the boat to look at other options. Scrap VAT and increase income tax proportionally. An immediate fairer system. Income tax is already worked out proportionally. I'm not unwilling to listen, hence me asking for your ideas. Income tax should be increased to cover the VAT shortfall (as well as rearranging bands - as labour suggested in 2017). It’s a fairer, more progressive taxation system. Are we also including the lower end of the scale in this scenario? Of course, everyone would see an increase in income tax, and VAT removed entirely - the exact figures would have to be calculated to ensure that the poorest didn’t find themselves worse off. Labour weren't proposing an increase below 80k? They expected to raise 7b from the reforms, providing no one changed their habits. VAT raises in excess of 150b. Those figures don't match up. I used 2017 as a simple example that bands can be changed - labour weren’t proposing that VAT be removed, such a policy would obviously result in very different tax band adjustments across the board. Fair enough, we now need to know how much income tax will need to increase for all to make up a shortfall of 150b. And for it to be fair across the board. Fair in terms of percentage taken? Or fair in terms of impact? The two aren’t the same. I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system. That's not gonna happen. Take someone earning 20k being taxed at 20%. They'll take home 16k (assuming we scrap personal allowance). Are you going to tax someone earning 100k, 84%? Unless you have another way of working out a 'fair impact'. Same impact does not mean ‘take home same amount’ But how do you measure individual impact? The way we measure impact now, which is how we know that low earners spend more on VAT (as a percentage of their income) than high earners do. You're gonna have to help me out mate. If you're talking proportion of wages, I need to know how that works. That’s because you don’t believe that those who earn more should pay more, and seem to think I’m advocating the same. I’m not. I said “ I’d like the impact upon the poor to be no greater than the impact on the wealthy - unlike our existing system” I support increasing tax bands. I don’t support anything ridiculous like 90% tax rates, but I do believe that those who earn more should pay more. And I say that as a higher rate tax payer myself. Those who earn more can shoulder a greater burden without suffering. As I said before, they already do pay more tax. Then if we’re not going to be radical about this, we need to close loopholes, stop stupid ideas like cutting out inheritance tax, and examine whether existing tax bands are fit for purpose. " Tax of today is not fit for purpose I'm the opposite of you scrap income tax bellow 55k and double VAT when at the same time removing VAT from house hold energy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children. So we earned our pay and were taxed on it so shops we spend it at shouldnt have to pay any tax on their profits? As that moneh has aleady been taxed? Some would argue that (not me because it doesn’t only apply to individuals) but you have just proven the point. We buy our homes from post tax net income. We then improve our homes paying VAT on services and products. The estate (home) increases in value due to improvements. Why should that then be taxed a third time?" so no cgt on holiday homes ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children. So we earned our pay and were taxed on it so shops we spend it at shouldnt have to pay any tax on their profits? As that moneh has aleady been taxed? But as individual's we persay pay tax when earning money and pay VAT when we spend it so taxed twice anyway. Some would argue that (not me because it doesn’t only apply to individuals) but you have just proven the point. We buy our homes from post tax net income. We then improve our homes paying VAT on services and products. The estate (home) increases in value due to improvements. Why should that then be taxed a third time?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children. So we earned our pay and were taxed on it so shops we spend it at shouldnt have to pay any tax on their profits? As that moneh has aleady been taxed? Some would argue that (not me because it doesn’t only apply to individuals) but you have just proven the point. We buy our homes from post tax net income. We then improve our homes paying VAT on services and products. The estate (home) increases in value due to improvements. Why should that then be taxed a third time?so no cgt on holiday homes ?" Is there CGT on Holiday homes over seas? Don't know not got one. But guess if you where to buy a holiday home you would set up a limited company for the purchase and running, have siblings as directors with B class Shareholders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, it's unfair to apply double taxation to any assets." Really so if I pay income tax on income you don't think I should pay my council tax bill or road fund licence or VAT or Duty on alcohol or fule.. Yes my priority is alcohol befor fule?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We buy our homes from post tax net income. We then improve our homes paying VAT on services and products. The estate (home) increases in value due to improvements. Why should that then be taxed a third time?" You're not being taxed a third time. If you bought your house, and then improved it, you could sell it for more money and you wouldn't be taxed on the gains (assuming it's where you live). Once you die, it's your kids that get charged inheritance tax, and they didn't do anything to earn that money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. " You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first." If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. " You can't hear me and I can't hear you on this subject, and we have been around these houses more than once. ;-) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak is suggesting that inheritance tax should be scrapped given that we pay tax all our lives so why should we also do so in death. Why indeed? The problem I have with this argument is that it is the wealthy that are typically paying inheritance tax and the wealthy (or the super rich) have as many tax avoidance schemes to ensure that they do not pay tax during their lives that, scrapping inheritance tax is simply making it more easy for them to avoid yet another financial hurdle. If anything, increase the threshold before inheritance tax is due but scrapping it is not the answer. Of course, it could be argued that those who are rich have measures in place to avoid paying this tax in any case but my argument would be that, rather than scrapping this tax, we should be looking at how to stop people who use avoidance schemes - but that is unlikely to happen providing that we are ruled by those whom this more than likely applies to. So - should inheritance tax be scrapped? " 1. A lot of people think they could end up paying it one day (even if they don't end up amassing that much wealth) 2. Far more people are affected by it than who actually pay it (it reduces the amount you inherit if you have a wealthy parent / family member, even if you're not going to be wealthy in your own right) 3. The number of people who pay it in future is only going to go up since the thresholds are not indexed for inflation or house prices 4. It's so obviously a tax on the middle classes rather than the genuinely wealthy that people do realise it's unfair even if they don't expect to pay it themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first." "If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent." I think it might help you to understand his point of view if I re-phrase that a bit for you: If I benefit society, and have improved services and welfare, then my family benefits too. If I hoard wealth for the benefit of my family, then ultimately everyone loses except for my family, who gain. Does that make it clearer for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. I think it might help you to understand his point of view if I re-phrase that a bit for you: If I benefit society, and have improved services and welfare, then my family benefits too. If I hoard wealth for the benefit of my family, then ultimately everyone loses except for my family, who gain. Does that make it clearer for you?" How does your family gain from reduced services and infrastructure? More homeless, higher crime, poorer health infrastructure? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. You can't hear me and I can't hear you on this subject, and we have been around these houses more than once. ;-) " Indeed. I’ve never understood those who don’t grasp how a successful society works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The average inheritance left by a UK citizen is £11,000 (source: The ONS). This is the problem when people use their own anecdotal evidence e.g. "by me £325,000 wouldn't even get you a flat". They lose touch with reality of what life is like for 'average' people. I stand by my assertion that scrapping inheritance tax does NOTHING for the average Joe. I get that but people live where they live and their reality is theirs. A question - why is IHT fair? I'll challenge that wuth why is it fair someone gets 2 million in unearned income untaxed when the average person is taxed on majority of their income? Because their parents earned it (and were taxed) and invested wisely so they had something to pass on to their children. So we earned our pay and were taxed on it so shops we spend it at shouldnt have to pay any tax on their profits? As that moneh has aleady been taxed? Some would argue that (not me because it doesn’t only apply to individuals) but you have just proven the point. We buy our homes from post tax net income. We then improve our homes paying VAT on services and products. The estate (home) increases in value due to improvements. Why should that then be taxed a third time?so no cgt on holiday homes ?" Ah ok you need to see my other posts. IMO primary/family home should be exempt because it is your home not an investment and everyone needs a home. Additional properties are however not essential and are therefore more easily identified as an investment. Have some minimum time frame to prevent someone flipping. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. You can't hear me and I can't hear you on this subject, and we have been around these houses more than once. ;-) Indeed. I’ve never understood those who don’t grasp how a successful society works. " Problem for you, is you are firmly in a minority, and how do I know that? Look around you and consider how many people vote for the things you advocate? As I said in a previous post, labour needed and need to distance itself from the militant left wing and paint itself a lighter shade of blue, and I thank you for that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. I think it might help you to understand his point of view if I re-phrase that a bit for you: If I benefit society, and have improved services and welfare, then my family benefits too. If I hoard wealth for the benefit of my family, then ultimately everyone loses except for my family, who gain. Does that make it clearer for you? How does your family gain from reduced services and infrastructure? More homeless, higher crime, poorer health infrastructure?" So are you saying scrap IHT and all the homeless will get a home wating list will be sorted ASAP ad crime will end. Or I keep what I can pay for private Health and security. I support charity for homeless so help there anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. I think it might help you to understand his point of view if I re-phrase that a bit for you: If I benefit society, and have improved services and welfare, then my family benefits too. If I hoard wealth for the benefit of my family, then ultimately everyone loses except for my family, who gain. Does that make it clearer for you? How does your family gain from reduced services and infrastructure? More homeless, higher crime, poorer health infrastructure? So are you saying scrap IHT and all the homeless will get a home wating list will be sorted ASAP ad crime will end. Or I keep what I can pay for private Health and security. I support charity for homeless so help there anyway. " Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. The natural end game of what you describe would lead to ever decreasingly small numbers of elites gradually controlling more and more, and even what we would today describe as ‘well off’ falling further down the food chain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. You can't hear me and I can't hear you on this subject, and we have been around these houses more than once. ;-) Indeed. I’ve never understood those who don’t grasp how a successful society works. " So o you give a % of you income to those that need help charity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, scrap it. If people stopped worrying about how wealthy a small minority of people are and concentrated on themselves, I think we could all live happily ever after. So how would you cover the tax income lost from scrapping the tax? Raise income tax? Reduce benefits? Reduce police numbers? Increase vat and duty on sugar etc VAT is In my mind the hardest tax to avoid so should be used more. VAT disproportionately impacts the poorest in society though. How if they spend less Children's clothes are and should be 0% VAT Most food is and should be 0% VAT I would like to see vat on energy reduced. And vat on some things increased. But that's for another Forem But most other tax to some extent can be avoided If a millionaire buys a product for a tenner, he pays the same tax on that item as someone on minimum wage. So the tax is a far greater percentage of the second person’s wealth. So let's punish the millionaire? You are aware that a millionaire would already pay more tax in the form of VAT than someone who you say is 'the poorest in society'? Working things on % is the fairest way for all. I’m just saying that VAT impacts the poor more than the rich. Literally, that’s all I said. I know what you said, it's one of those that you throw out there fairly often. I said, the richer people pay more VAT than poorer people. It's fact that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. VAT cannot be avoided. They may pay more VAT, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. Same as council tax. Both are regressive taxes. Of course the tories could change VAT. But they historically tend to only change it upwards…. They pay more tax overall. But you don’t disagree that VAT is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor? Re VAT I think if it no longer applied to the essentials for life (food, energy, clothes) then it would no longer adversely and disproportionately impact the poorer in society. If the poor only bought essentials, then maybe. But should the poor not aspire to have more than ‘the essentials’? Yes they should I stated my working life with £0 poor worked hard and am now in my mind OK most would say rich. But that is through hard work anyone can do that but sum are just happy with there lot you can't teach aspirations.. Aspiration and hard work aren’t always enough. Luck. Circumstance. Technological changes. Societal changes all impact where one ends up. I do alright for myself, and I never forget that there are millions out there with the same or better qualifications, stronger work ethic and suchlike, who don’t do as well as I do. You are different to most people though. You are happy to give everything away in favour strangers than your family, that is and always will be foreign to me, blows my mind! My family will always come first. If you benefit society, have improved services and welfare then your family benefits too. If you hoard wealth for the benefit of those you choose, then ultimately everyone loses except for the top few percent. You can't hear me and I can't hear you on this subject, and we have been around these houses more than once. ;-) Indeed. I’ve never understood those who don’t grasp how a successful society works. So o you give a % of you income to those that need help charity." I give money to charity, yes. I shouldn’t, because charity is the anathema of socialism - but I’d rather not see people suffering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each person has £325k current Iht threshold, plus an extra £175k residential property relief - £500k per person / £1M per couple. Anything over that give away using PET (7 year rule) and no iht liability. iHT is a fools tax. Anyone with estates of these amounts needs to take advice and arrange their affairs accordingly. " That's OK but with needing an ever growing amount invested in a pension to live out old age as private pension is the way forward you can't give it away and live. I have been advised to aime for £1m in our joint pension or £500,000 each if we want a comfortable retirement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. " This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs." Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For example: 1. Remove Non-Dom status. If you live here you pay here. Simple." Let's examine this Imagine a foreign business woman who is earning £1m a year from her successful foreign business. She thinks about seeing up a similar business in the UK. If she does, she'll make nothing for the first 2 years as she gets established, then she'll make £250,000 a year from the new UK busines. With non-dom status she'll pay no UK tax for the first 2 years, then she'll pay UK tax on her UK earnings of £250,000. Without non-dom status she'll have to pay full UK tax on her £1m foreign earnings, even though her UK company is making no money. Is the second example a fair way to treat those who come from a foreign country and have foreign earnings? Might it put them off coming here to start up the new company? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. " I just quoted what you said. You said that individuals in a society should not place one's own needs over the needs of society. No one will place society's needs above their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. I just quoted what you said. You said that individuals in a society should not place one's own needs over the needs of society. No one will place society's needs above their own. " And as I explained reasonably succinctly, I thought - both are dependent upon one another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each person has £325k current Iht threshold, plus an extra £175k residential property relief - £500k per person / £1M per couple. That's OK but with needing an ever growing amount invested in a pension to live out old age as private pension is the way forward you can't give it away and live. I have been advised to aime for £1m in our joint pension or £500,000 each if we want a comfortable retirement." Additionally, specific to pension funds, the individual lifetime allowance is currently £1,073,100, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. I just quoted what you said. You said that individuals in a society should not place one's own needs over the needs of society. No one will place society's needs above their own. And as I explained reasonably succinctly, I thought - both are dependent upon one another. " No you did not. You just went on a typical socialist rant about "those rich elites" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are programmed to pay the taxes , seen our parents paying their fair share since ages…and we thought this is the best system..isn’t it? Habibi Live in Dubai for sometime and then talk about what the hell these Taxes are "I can’t think of anywhere I’d like to live less than Dubai. It’s personal preference of course, but a more soulless place I can’t imagine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think IHT is punitive. It only affects the middle classes / those on upper middle incomes as the rich snd super rich have estate planning and legal tax avoidance tactics available to them (we all do actually but at a cost most can’t afford). Instead of focusing on taxing dead people’s assets and preventing them from being passed on to their children, we need to close tax loopholes that people/companies can exploit while still alive/active. For example: 1. Remove Non-Dom status. If you live here you pay here. Simple. 2. Make it illegal to transfer your assets into your spouses name (who can then “live” abroad). 3. Make it illegal to own your family/primary home through a company. 4. Companies should pay tax in the country where profits are earned and stop the practice of allowing parent/holding companies being based on tax havens charging IP royalties and management costs (that causes UK operations to be loss making when clearly they are not) Etc " Removing non dom status would simply mean that less tax would be collected overall. In any event only a small minority of individuals can claim non dom status. Why should it be illegal to transfer assets into your spouses name ? We do not yet live in a totalitarian society. If someone has to take a large risk it might be prudent to have the family home in the name of a company . You cannot simply transfer revenues between companies in different countries to avoid tax . HMRC look very carefully at management charges and royalties . If they are not reasonable they will be disregarded for the purposes of calculating corporation tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. I just quoted what you said. You said that individuals in a society should not place one's own needs over the needs of society. No one will place society's needs above their own. And as I explained reasonably succinctly, I thought - both are dependent upon one another. No you did not. You just went on a typical socialist rant about "those rich elites"" I suspect your reading comprehension is lacking somewhat, if that’s your take on what I said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. I just quoted what you said. You said that individuals in a society should not place one's own needs over the needs of society. No one will place society's needs above their own. And as I explained reasonably succinctly, I thought - both are dependent upon one another. No you did not. You just went on a typical socialist rant about "those rich elites" I suspect your reading comprehension is lacking somewhat, if that’s your take on what I said. " I suspect you are dreaming things which you never said. Which part of your original message says anything about a symbiotic relationship? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. This is virtue signalling at its finest. Everyone places their own needs above society. We are all here on a swingers website with a paid account. I am pretty sure that the money could be used for someone else's meal, which in the altruistic sense, is much more important than us having sex with strangers :?-?) Taxes are useful for building infrastructure that helps the individual at the end of the day. We could work together as a society where it benefits the individuals. But acting like I would sacrifice my personal needs for some stranger I don't even know is complete bs. Who said anything about sacrificing anything? Individual needs and society’s needs have a symbiotic relationship. Good luck surviving if there was ever a genuine ‘each to their own’ nation that you lived in. I just quoted what you said. You said that individuals in a society should not place one's own needs over the needs of society. No one will place society's needs above their own. And as I explained reasonably succinctly, I thought - both are dependent upon one another. No you did not. You just went on a typical socialist rant about "those rich elites" I suspect your reading comprehension is lacking somewhat, if that’s your take on what I said. I suspect you are dreaming things which you never said. Which part of your original message says anything about a symbiotic relationship? " No, you have things arse about face. You first accused me of saying we had to sacrifice as individuals for the betterment of society. If you could kindly point out where I mentioned personal sacrifice, that’d be peachy. I then went on to explain myself further, that without cohesive society most individuals won’t survive (true) - I did not rant, - which you also accused me of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You first accused me of saying we had to sacrifice as individuals for the betterment of society. If you could kindly point out where I mentioned personal sacrifice, that’d be peachy. " " Im saying that a ‘society’ in which every individual places their own needs above everyone else’s is not a society at all. " If individuals have to keep societies needs above their own, it is a sacrifice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
