Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong." That's labours job whilst they're in opposition. Just like it's the tories job, when they're in opposition. That's politics.   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think Cameron should pay it back, despite the fact that it would be doing the right thing. But he has benefited form his dads scams. He was brought up with privileges that his dads money can buy." 1) Pay back what to whom? 2) No evidence of scam or wrong doing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong. That's labours job whilst they're in opposition. Just like it's the tories job, when they're in opposition. That's politics. "Sorry but no. The current Labour incumbents would have 99% living tax rate and 100% inheritance tax rate to do what with? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think Cameron should pay it back, despite the fact that it would be doing the right thing. But he has benefited form his dads scams. He was brought up with privileges that his dads money can buy. 1) Pay back what to whom? 2) No evidence of scam or wrong doing." Yes sorry. I forgot that a legalised theft system is not illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong. That's labours job whilst they're in opposition. Just like it's the tories job, when they're in opposition. That's politics.
Sorry but no. The current Labour incumbents would have 99% living tax rate and 100% inheritance tax rate to do what with?"That's just total nonsense. Are you d*unk.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong. That's labours job whilst they're in opposition. Just like it's the tories job, when they're in opposition. That's politics.
Sorry but no. The current Labour incumbents would have 99% living tax rate and 100% inheritance tax rate to do what with?
That's just total nonsense.
Are you d*unk.
"Not yet... But I can't help but wonder that If 40% tax has already been paid on accumulated wealth, what exactly do Labour want to take on top of that? It is certainly depressing enough to drive you to drink. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong." Depends if the whole thing was thing was done so he didnt pay any tax. Lets face it people dont make money by giving it away. People with money know how to hide it. And as for dividing the country, what do you suppose people would say if this was a labour or lib dem MP? | |||
(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 |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we should ban ISA's, stop people paying for services with cash, ban booze cruises, stop duty free allowances, etc. All are forms of tax avoidance and in the case of cash payments this is actually tax evasion which is totally illegal. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone..., from total agnostics by the way. If society has legally allowed people to do something, then don't criticise them for doing it. If however we want a witch hunt then where does it end?"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes......." the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The situation was handled in the incorrect manner. Instead of brushing it aside he should have been open and honest. I do understand that these tax havens are legal loopholes that allow investors to avoid tax. As they say, you don't stay wealthy by giving things away for free. My criticism of DC is how he slated Jimmy Carr for doing the exact same thing, being in full knowledge that his family has benefitted from a similar scheme. People living in glass houses should not throw stones. Unfortunately, it would seem that they throw the most." Such as Ken Livingstone for example, one of Camerons biggest critics? It's emerged that in 2010-11 he routed £238,646 of earnings from public speaking etc through his personal company so that he paid the lower rate of corporation tax rather than income tax on it, saving himself £54,000. Not illegal but morally any better? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong." Just like your opinion here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we should ban ISA's, stop people paying for services with cash, ban booze cruises, stop duty free allowances, etc. All are forms of tax avoidance and in the case of cash payments this is actually tax evasion which is totally illegal. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone..., from total agnostics by the way. If society has legally allowed people to do something, then don't criticise them for doing it. If however we want a witch hunt then where does it end?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The situation was handled in the incorrect manner. Instead of brushing it aside he should have been open and honest. I do understand that these tax havens are legal loopholes that allow investors to avoid tax. As they say, you don't stay wealthy by giving things away for free. My criticism of DC is how he slated Jimmy Carr for doing the exact same thing, being in full knowledge that his family has benefitted from a similar scheme. People living in glass houses should not throw stones. Unfortunately, it would seem that they throw the most. Such as Ken Livingstone for example, one of Camerons biggest critics? It's emerged that in 2010-11 he routed £238,646 of earnings from public speaking etc through his personal company so that he paid the lower rate of corporation tax rather than income tax on it, saving himself £54,000. Not illegal but morally any better?" Is that true? I thought he'd been quiet  I'm no cameron fan but he's hardly the only one. And I feel the criticism has gone too far now with the stories trying to make a big deal of the gifts from his mother. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". If however we want a witch hunt then where does it end? " Ends with Cameron, the corrupt twat who preaches one thing whilst trying to cover up his own corruption's I am sure his accountants will have all his shady deals well hidden by now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pfft. You say tom-ay-to, I say tom-ar-to. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think Cameron should pay it back, despite the fact that it would be doing the right thing. But he has benefited form his dads scams. He was brought up with privileges that his dads money can buy." Some say scams some say shrewd investments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The situation was handled in the incorrect manner. Instead of brushing it aside he should have been open and honest. I do understand that these tax havens are legal loopholes that allow investors to avoid tax. As they say, you don't stay wealthy by giving things away for free. My criticism of DC is how he slated Jimmy Carr for doing the exact same thing, being in full knowledge that his family has benefitted from a similar scheme. People living in glass houses should not throw stones. Unfortunately, it would seem that they throw the most. Such as Ken Livingstone for example, one of Camerons biggest critics? It's emerged that in 2010-11 he routed £238,646 of earnings from public speaking etc through his personal company so that he paid the lower rate of corporation tax rather than income tax on it, saving himself £54,000. Not illegal but morally any better? Is that true? I thought he'd been quiet I'm no cameron fan but he's hardly the only one. And I feel the criticism has gone too far now with the stories trying to make a big deal of the gifts from his mother. "Well, according to an article I read yesterday. And he aint been that quiet, he called for Cameron to be sent to prison | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers" What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. " That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The situation was handled in the incorrect manner. Instead of brushing it aside he should have been open and honest. I do understand that these tax havens are legal loopholes that allow investors to avoid tax. As they say, you don't stay wealthy by giving things away for free. My criticism of DC is how he slated Jimmy Carr for doing the exact same thing, being in full knowledge that his family has benefitted from a similar scheme. People living in glass houses should not throw stones. Unfortunately, it would seem that they throw the most. Such as Ken Livingstone for example, one of Camerons biggest critics? It's emerged that in 2010-11 he routed £238,646 of earnings from public speaking etc through his personal company so that he paid the lower rate of corporation tax rather than income tax on it, saving himself £54,000. Not illegal but morally any better? Is that true? I thought he'd been quiet I'm no cameron fan but he's hardly the only one. And I feel the criticism has gone too far now with the stories trying to make a big deal of the gifts from his mother.
Well, according to an article I read yesterday. And he aint been that quiet, he called for Cameron to be sent to prison "I must have missed that. I do try to block him out to be fair, he's a stain on the labour party | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the opposition really wanted parliament they would have a suitable candidate. Would you trust Corbyn more. Seriously think about it. Secondly since he has been leader the party had fallen back to the seventies and entered into dirty slanderous politics with no substance and no validity of claims made. If they really wanted to be serious contenders they would get rid of the noggin and become real players with real solutions. This country is a business simply money in/money out. " And they have Kezia Dugdale in Scotland which ensures they will never rise again in Scotland due to her complete incompetence as a Scottish leader Im just Glad Scotland has a party who looks after Scotlands Interests, Shame Westminster does not look after UK's interests . think about it . . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the opposition really wanted parliament they would have a suitable candidate. Would you trust Corbyn more. Seriously think about it. Secondly since he has been leader the party had fallen back to the seventies and entered into dirty slanderous politics with no substance and no validity of claims made. If they really wanted to be serious contenders they would get rid of the noggin and become real players with real solutions. This country is a business simply money in/money out. " That's funny..,on YouGov Corbyn is showing a higher approval rating than Cameron, so the public don't share your views at all. The polls also show that they trust Corbyn more to deal with tax avoidance than Cameron, Osborne or Johnson. It is hilarious the ways in which people who voted for these moral crooks seek to minimise what they have done and try to put the blame on Lanour for shining light into the traditionally murky world of Tory party finances. Luckily the general public approve! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh dear it's a bit early for such emotive arguments on such differences. I think since the year dot people have been finding loop holes in taxes and allowances and all classes have been doing it at different levels. Playing devil's advocate; would people be as angry if a low paid garage mechanic had found a loophole to secure £30000 ? Maybe this isn't about moral decisions but more about dislike of individuals? The disparity of wealth and social living conditions in the country form a separate debate I think. " A low paid garage mechanic would not be able to personally intervene in European discussions to help protect the tax status of businesses that he had a financial stake in...like David Cameron did. So your analogy doesn't work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"John McDonnell scrapes the barrel in his attempts to dumb down the nation to the lowest possible level. "Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had “effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it,” which, he said, showed there was “something wrong with the system”." Utter bollocks and said with the sole intention of causing division in society. What Next?? Remove wealth from everyone who dies and punish the genetically programmed nature of human beings to try to look after their offspring? Opinions that should stay in the gutter where they belong." fine.. But lets have it for everyone! No matter how rich or poor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh dear it's a bit early for such emotive arguments on such differences. I think since the year dot people have been finding loop holes in taxes and allowances and all classes have been doing it at different levels. Playing devil's advocate; would people be as angry if a low paid garage mechanic had found a loophole to secure £30000 ? Maybe this isn't about moral decisions but more about dislike of individuals? The disparity of wealth and social living conditions in the country form a separate debate I think. A low paid garage mechanic would not be able to personally intervene in European discussions to help protect the tax status of businesses that he had a financial stake in...like David Cameron did. So your analogy doesn't work." It may do if he inherited a lot of money and was given loophole advice by an accountant? I have a friend who runs a business,who constantly receives advice on tax loopholes and ways of getting benefits financially. He's by no means rich or connected to the financial industry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh dear it's a bit early for such emotive arguments on such differences. I think since the year dot people have been finding loop holes in taxes and allowances and all classes have been doing it at different levels. Playing devil's advocate; would people be as angry if a low paid garage mechanic had found a loophole to secure £30000 ? Maybe this isn't about moral decisions but more about dislike of individuals? The disparity of wealth and social living conditions in the country form a separate debate I think. A low paid garage mechanic would not be able to personally intervene in European discussions to help protect the tax status of businesses that he had a financial stake in...like David Cameron did. So your analogy doesn't work.It may do if he inherited a lot of money and was given loophole advice by an accountant? I have a friend who runs a business,who constantly receives advice on tax loopholes and ways of getting benefits financially. He's by no means rich or connected to the financial industry. " No. Receiving advice on tax loopholes is not the same as personally intervening in European tax law discussions. Why would you think it is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth! "I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services. That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't). The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh dear it's a bit early for such emotive arguments on such differences. I think since the year dot people have been finding loop holes in taxes and allowances and all classes have been doing it at different levels. Playing devil's advocate; would people be as angry if a low paid garage mechanic had found a loophole to secure £30000 ? Maybe this isn't about moral decisions but more about dislike of individuals? The disparity of wealth and social living conditions in the country form a separate debate I think. A low paid garage mechanic would not be able to personally intervene in European discussions to help protect the tax status of businesses that he had a financial stake in...like David Cameron did. So your analogy doesn't work.It may do if he inherited a lot of money and was given loophole advice by an accountant? I have a friend who runs a business,who constantly receives advice on tax loopholes and ways of getting benefits financially. He's by no means rich or connected to the financial industry. No. Receiving advice on tax loopholes is not the same as personally intervening in European tax law discussions. Why would you think it is?" I'm under the impression (and I admit I haven't read the full story as it stinks of media sensationalism ) that Cameron had shares invested off shore which gave him a financial benefit. These were invested prior to him taking PMs position? Has anything illegal taken place? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either. "You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years. George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either.
You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years.
George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing."Sorry but you just aren't objective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh dear it's a bit early for such emotive arguments on such differences. I think since the year dot people have been finding loop holes in taxes and allowances and all classes have been doing it at different levels. Playing devil's advocate; would people be as angry if a low paid garage mechanic had found a loophole to secure £30000 ? Maybe this isn't about moral decisions but more about dislike of individuals? The disparity of wealth and social living conditions in the country form a separate debate I think. A low paid garage mechanic would not be able to personally intervene in European discussions to help protect the tax status of businesses that he had a financial stake in...like David Cameron did. So your analogy doesn't work.It may do if he inherited a lot of money and was given loophole advice by an accountant? I have a friend who runs a business,who constantly receives advice on tax loopholes and ways of getting benefits financially. He's by no means rich or connected to the financial industry. No. Receiving advice on tax loopholes is not the same as personally intervening in European tax law discussions. Why would you think it is? I'm under the impression (and I admit I haven't read the full story as it stinks of media sensationalism ) that Cameron had shares invested off shore which gave him a financial benefit. These were invested prior to him taking PMs position? Has anything illegal taken place?" No. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, and Cameron has done his best to ensure it remains so...something your mechanic would not be able to do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either.
You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years.
George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing.
Sorry but you just aren't objective. "And neither are you - but what I am saying is based on historically verifiable fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No my mechanic friend can't influence tax loopholes you're quite right,and I'm not well versed enough in the subject of politics; particularly economics to debate the subject proficiently. However. I do believe the OP was debating the subject of inheriting a large amount of money and not paying tax on it. Yes you make a valid point that Cameron has ensured the ability to do this has remained,but have previous parties or ministers pushed through radical changes to the system to do so?" No one else on this thread is well versed in economics either whatever they might like to think so get stuck in | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No my mechanic friend can't influence tax loopholes you're quite right,and I'm not well versed enough in the subject of politics; particularly economics to debate the subject proficiently. However. I do believe the OP was debating the subject of inheriting a large amount of money and not paying tax on it. Yes you make a valid point that Cameron has ensured the ability to do this has remained,but have previous parties or ministers pushed through radical changes to the system to do so? No one else on this thread is well versed in economics either whatever they might like to think so get stuck in " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either.
You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years.
George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing.
Sorry but you just aren't objective.
And neither are you - but what I am saying is based on historically verifiable fact."We'll let others decide that. You're cherry picking measures and mixing things that don't mix (growth / debt). The fact that I criticise labour and the Conservatives, whilst you just think obsbourne is just the son of satan, I think most people can see who is objective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No my mechanic friend can't influence tax loopholes you're quite right,and I'm not well versed enough in the subject of politics; particularly economics to debate the subject proficiently. However. I do believe the OP was debating the subject of inheriting a large amount of money and not paying tax on it. Yes you make a valid point that Cameron has ensured the ability to do this has remained,but have previous parties or ministers pushed through radical changes to the system to do so? No one else on this thread is well versed in economics either whatever they might like to think so get stuck in " Speak for yourself, I'd go head to head on economics with any of those fuck wits in parliament. Some of us have real jobs that involve economics. Most in parliament have never even had a real job! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either.
You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years.
George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing.
Sorry but you just aren't objective.
And neither are you - but what I am saying is based on historically verifiable fact.
We'll let others decide that.
You're cherry picking measures and mixing things that don't mix (growth / debt). The fact that I criticise labour and the Conservatives, whilst you just think obsbourne is just the son of satan, I think most people can see who is objective. "Incorrect once again, I am confusing neither, and I showed how Osborne has failed on both. As your 'objectivity' is based on you incorrectly stating that Labour 'bankrupted the country' in every thread you think you can shoehorn it into, I don't think you can make even the slightest claim to objectivity. Alternatively, you don't actually know what the term 'bankrupt' means. Which is it? As for Osborne being the 'son of satan'...  I would expect the son of Satan to have some charisma! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No my mechanic friend can't influence tax loopholes you're quite right,and I'm not well versed enough in the subject of politics; particularly economics to debate the subject proficiently. However. I do believe the OP was debating the subject of inheriting a large amount of money and not paying tax on it. Yes you make a valid point that Cameron has ensured the ability to do this has remained,but have previous parties or ministers pushed through radical changes to the system to do so?" I haven't made any mention of Cameron influencing changes on inheritance tax. It should be noted, however, that inheritance tax is paid by roughly 6% of people. The vast majority of people will simply never pay it, and it is a useful mechanism for getting the rich to pay a fairer share of the tax burden. Of course, based on the above, you might see why many politicians of all political persuasion have no appetite to make any changes to inheritance tax other than abolishing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's not true. Jimmy Carr used those schemes to put his money into and not declare it, allegedly. David Cameron had shares in the company, and declared the sale in the right way " Not totally true, Jimmy Carr committed no crime, so must have declared it. he was called out by the PM for immoral tax affairs not illegal. Which is exactly what the PM was doing up until 2 months before pushing his party members into declaring their interests and tax avoidence. Something a bit cynical about it? bit like the ex smoker telling all smokers that they stink, it may be true, but do they have the right to complain when they were smoking last month? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either.
You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years.
George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing.
Sorry but you just aren't objective.
And neither are you - but what I am saying is based on historically verifiable fact.
We'll let others decide that.
You're cherry picking measures and mixing things that don't mix (growth / debt). The fact that I criticise labour and the Conservatives, whilst you just think obsbourne is just the son of satan, I think most people can see who is objective.
Incorrect once again, I am confusing neither, and I showed how Osborne has failed on both.
As your 'objectivity' is based on you incorrectly stating that Labour 'bankrupted the country' in every thread you think you can shoehorn it into, I don't think you can make even the slightest claim to objectivity.
Alternatively, you don't actually know what the term 'bankrupt' means. Which is it?
As for Osborne being the 'son of satan'... I would expect the son of Satan to have some charisma!"I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there is anything wrong with ang parent wanting to pass on money to their children, and not have to pay the Exchequer for the privilege. He's done nothing wrong in this instance other than have the good fortune to come from a wealthy background Why oh why do we in the UK have to decry those that have money,- we seem to want to work towards a socialistic lowest common denominator (and raise it slightly) than actually celebrate those that are successful. And actually, individuals that are wealthy are invariably from families that have created wealth and employment for others Sometimes, the USA and the American Dream is actually a good thing. I said only sometimes....... the issue is double standards.. They avoided tax while leaving the law as it stands so others pay the tax. His position as pm makes it worse. Not illegal but morally shabby.. But the tories and morals are not good mixers What's moral about bankrupting a country? The poor are hit hardest by bad economic management. That's right - and as the Tories have mismanaged our economy soectacularly, as anyone who is financially literate knows, racking up more debt and borrowing more in six years than Labour did in 13, they are betraying the poor on both fronts! Let's face it, the only area the Tory government has shown any sign of economic competence is in the art of protecting their own wealth!
I actually partially agree, anyone who thinks Osborne has done well isn't being objective. He's failed to eliminate the deficit, the northern powerhouse doesn't exist and the economy is too dependant on financial services.
That said, the only reason he is in power is because of labour's clusterfuck spending and bailout of the banks (which the tories should have opposed but didn't).
The increase in debt under Osborne was inevitable given his starting position, he couldn't have avoided that, but he hasn't done a great job either.
You've also got that wrong. When Osborne gained power the economy was growing again, so his starting position was good, but his immediate austerity budget managed to flatline that growth for two years.
George Osborne has proved to be the most incompetent chancellor in living memory - which considering the collection of idiots who have occupied that position, has really taken some doing.
Sorry but you just aren't objective.
And neither are you - but what I am saying is based on historically verifiable fact.
We'll let others decide that.
You're cherry picking measures and mixing things that don't mix (growth / debt). The fact that I criticise labour and the Conservatives, whilst you just think obsbourne is just the son of satan, I think most people can see who is objective.
Incorrect once again, I am confusing neither, and I showed how Osborne has failed on both.
As your 'objectivity' is based on you incorrectly stating that Labour 'bankrupted the country' in every thread you think you can shoehorn it into, I don't think you can make even the slightest claim to objectivity.
Alternatively, you don't actually know what the term 'bankrupt' means. Which is it?
As for Osborne being the 'son of satan'... I would expect the son of Satan to have some charisma!
I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job."The only reason you 'tire of it' is that you know you can't argue with the facts. You may well think that Labour's handling of the economy was pathetic, but bankruptcy is a matter of fact, not opinion. I invite you to refute anything that I've said...but as we both know the facts are on my side, and you'll just evade the question as you have done again here, retiring with good grace is a sensible option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's not true. Jimmy Carr used those schemes to put his money into and not declare it, allegedly. David Cameron had shares in the company, and declared the sale in the right way Not totally true, Jimmy Carr committed no crime, so must have declared it. he was called out by the PM for immoral tax affairs not illegal. Which is exactly what the PM was doing up until 2 months before pushing his party members into declaring their interests and tax avoidence. Something a bit cynical about it? bit like the ex smoker telling all smokers that they stink, it may be true, but do they have the right to complain when they were smoking last month?" How could anyone accuse Cameron of being cynical? Let's not forget, he published his incomplete tax returns on midnight on a Saturday night, so he obviously feels he has nothing to hide here! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job." 1 Labour never ruled the world, and certainly not the USA. So the global issues which stemmed in a large part from the USA debt market can't really be pinned on them. 2 9/11 was the most inside job possible. Terrorists were INSIDE aircraft and they put them INSIDE buildings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. 1 Labour never ruled the world, and certainly not the USA. So the global issues which stemmed in a large part from the USA debt market can't really be pinned on them. 2 9/11 was the most inside job possible. Terrorists were INSIDE aircraft and they put them INSIDE buildings. " Really? You should go back on your medication. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital "I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job." Certain posters have history of asserting facts, unrefutable assertions and absolute predictions of the future action of the nation. Those same posters have a habit of then dissappearing for a few months when things don't go according to plan. Bottom line is that you are right. The only Labour government not to fuck up the economy was Blair in term 1 but he was more Conservative than the current Tory bunch. Getting the thread back on track... The point is about Inheritance Tax and how perfectly legitimate tax planning that everyone in the nation adheres to is somehow wrong when used by a Politician that does not wear a red rose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune."Any comment on Red Ken? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Certain posters have history of asserting facts, unrefutable assertions and absolute predictions of the future action of the nation. Those same posters have a habit of then dissappearing for a few months when things don't go according to plan. Bottom line is that you are right. The only Labour government not to fuck up the economy was Blair in term 1 but he was more Conservative than the current Tory bunch. Getting the thread back on track... The point is about Inheritance Tax and how perfectly legitimate tax planning that everyone in the nation adheres to is somehow wrong when used by a Politician that does not wear a red rose." As by 'certain posters' you mean me, I also invite you to rerveal the facts that contradict what I've said. But I think you'll probably stick to hysterical accusations about Labour dividing the nation, as no facts are needed for that one, eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?"Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Getting the thread back on track... The point is about Inheritance Tax and how perfectly legitimate tax planning that everyone in the nation adheres to is somehow wrong when used by a Politician that does not wear a red rose." By 'everyone in the nation' you really mean 6% of the nation. As that leaves 94% who don't engage in this form of 'perfectly legitimate tax planning', you seem to have a strange definition of everyone! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Really? You should go back on your medication. " Thank you, I like my medication, but out of interest which statement did you find outlandish? was it that George W Bush was not a member of the Labour party, or that Aircraft were deliberatly crashed into buildings on 9/11? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point is about Inheritance Tax and how perfectly legitimate tax planning that everyone in the nation adheres to is somehow wrong when used by a Politician that does not wear a red rose." the only way it will become illegitimate is through the democratic process and if the outcome of that democratic process doesn't suit your personal ideology it'll be tough shit and you'll have to lump it... same as it ever was | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?"No, his tax avoidance schemes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Certain posters have history of asserting facts, unrefutable assertions and absolute predictions of the future action of the nation. Those same posters have a habit of then dissappearing for a few months when things don't go according to plan. Bottom line is that you are right. The only Labour government not to fuck up the economy was Blair in term 1 but he was more Conservative than the current Tory bunch. Getting the thread back on track... The point is about Inheritance Tax and how perfectly legitimate tax planning that everyone in the nation adheres to is somehow wrong when used by a Politician that does not wear a red rose." . You mean like the Tory mismanagement of the economy in 85-89 or the term they mismanaged between 92-96??. I always get confused when people talk about economic mismanagement and political parties | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes"Do you really want to get into that? If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I tire of this conversation, as I say, we can let others decide. It's not even worth arguing about labour's management of the economy, it was pathetic. But arguing with you is like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Certain posters have history of asserting facts, unrefutable assertions and absolute predictions of the future action of the nation. Those same posters have a habit of then dissappearing for a few months when things don't go according to plan. Bottom line is that you are right. The only Labour government not to fuck up the economy was Blair in term 1 but he was more Conservative than the current Tory bunch. Getting the thread back on track... The point is about Inheritance Tax and how perfectly legitimate tax planning that everyone in the nation adheres to is somehow wrong when used by a Politician that does not wear a red rose.. You mean like the Tory mismanagement of the economy in 85-89 or the term they mismanaged between 92-96??. I always get confused when people talk about economic mismanagement and political parties" And let's not forget their current mismanagement, which has seen more debt and borrowing over six years than the last Labour government managed in thirteen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you."No, the onshore ones | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones"Sure, detail away. Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called. "The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really don't care about tax avoidace or evasion either come to that. If my window cleaner doesn't declare every window washed, or my mechanic will knock of 10% for cash. I don't care. If Starbucks gets profits out of the country before they pay tax, fine, they have paid VAT on all sales, all their staff have paid income tax nd will pay other taxes when they spend their wages. So who cares if the company is registered in a low tax country and avoids a few % extra. they have contributed. But I am a bit annoyed at people jumping on others for doing exctly what they used to do before hastily hiding their behaviour. ". That's a perfectly honest answer. You don't care that the employees paid their tax while the company avoided it's tax!!.. On the vat question... Exactly who paid the vat? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 94% of the UK population are so destitute that they leave nothing at all to their kids? £zero? I find that a bit hard to believe considering that most baby boomers are home owners. Perhaps the reason that 94% don't pay inheritance tax is because there are perfectly legitimate and highly publicised ways to avoid it and so people plan accordingly." . It doesn't start till you leave 300 and odd thousand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?"If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?
If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something."I do know. Tax avoidance. So what are you saying the purpose was? And I never said he did anything illegal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 94% of the UK population are so destitute that they leave nothing at all to their kids? £zero? I find that a bit hard to believe considering that most baby boomers are home owners. Perhaps the reason that 94% don't pay inheritance tax is because there are perfectly legitimate and highly publicised ways to avoid it and so people plan accordingly." This is from the House of Commons briefing paper on Inheritance Tax in September 2015: "Inheritance tax (IHT) is levied on the value of a person’s estate at the time of their death. The tax is charged at 40% above the tax-free threshold, which is £325,000 for 2015/16. In 2013/14 the tax raised £3.4 billion; receipts are forecast to be £4.2 billion in 2015/16.1 It is estimated that the tax was paid on 28,000 estates in 2013/14, representing 4.9% of all deaths." This information is available to all. I'm surprised you aren't better informed as you seem to hold such strong views on the subject. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's a perfectly honest answer. You don't care that the employees paid their tax while the company avoided it's tax!!.. On the vat question... Exactly who paid the vat?" There is a fairly good argument to be made that Corporation Tax should be abolished as it is not really fit for purpose in a globalised economy. A small transaction tax would be a far easier way to ensure that all transactions conducted in the UK are taxed and the mechanism to collect it could easily be fashioned from the VAT collections system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 94% of the UK population are so destitute that they leave nothing at all to their kids? £zero? I find that a bit hard to believe considering that most baby boomers are home owners. Perhaps the reason that 94% don't pay inheritance tax is because there are perfectly legitimate and highly publicised ways to avoid it and so people plan accordingly.. It doesn't start till you leave 300 and odd thousand?" EXACTLY. See the OP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?
If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something.
I do know. Tax avoidance. So what are you saying the purpose was? And I never said he did anything illegal"As you are saying the purpose of his company was tax avoidance, you clearly don't know though. Unless you are also saying that the purpose of ALL companies is tax avoidance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 94% of the UK population are so destitute that they leave nothing at all to their kids? £zero? I find that a bit hard to believe considering that most baby boomers are home owners. Perhaps the reason that 94% don't pay inheritance tax is because there are perfectly legitimate and highly publicised ways to avoid it and so people plan accordingly." The "reason" the vast majority don't pay it is that you are only eligible if you leave £325,000 or double that as a couple (soon to be £500,000 or £1m under George's "We're all in this together" new rules). HTH | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?
If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something.
I do know. Tax avoidance. So what are you saying the purpose was? And I never said he did anything illegal
As you are saying the purpose of his company was tax avoidance, you clearly don't know though.
Unless you are also saying that the purpose of ALL companies is tax avoidance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean."I am not saying all companies at all, I am saying his. So come on then, what was the purpose of it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?
If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something.
I do know. Tax avoidance. So what are you saying the purpose was? And I never said he did anything illegal
As you are saying the purpose of his company was tax avoidance, you clearly don't know though.
Unless you are also saying that the purpose of ALL companies is tax avoidance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean.
I am not saying all companies at all, I am saying his. So come on then, what was the purpose of it?"No, you'll have to start by showing how the purpose of his company was to avoid tax. That should be easy, as you say you know that was its purpose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 94% of the UK population are so destitute that they leave nothing at all to their kids? £zero? I find that a bit hard to believe considering that most baby boomers are home owners. Perhaps the reason that 94% don't pay inheritance tax is because there are perfectly legitimate and highly publicised ways to avoid it and so people plan accordingly. This is from the House of Commons briefing paper on Inheritance Tax in September 2015: "Inheritance tax (IHT) is levied on the value of a person’s estate at the time of their death. The tax is charged at 40% above the tax-free threshold, which is £325,000 for 2015/16. In 2013/14 the tax raised £3.4 billion; receipts are forecast to be £4.2 billion in 2015/16.1 It is estimated that the tax was paid on 28,000 estates in 2013/14, representing 4.9% of all deaths." This information is available to all. I'm surprised you aren't better informed as you seem to hold such strong views on the subject. " Thank you. You did miss out the bit about gifts but nonetheless you have provided the correct information about IHT thresholds. I understand from John McDonnell that he thinks that it is wrong for David Cameron to have received £300,000 from his fathers estate and not paid a penny in tax. By this argument, almost every parent who leaves anything to their children are also morally corrupt by avoiding IHT. Is the Labour position now that we should be volunteering to pay tax when none is due or just that IHT rules should apply to some people and not others? Or maybe they are looking to completely abolish tax free thresholds and thereby punish the 94% tax avoiders and make sure that they "pay their fair share." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?
If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something.
I do know. Tax avoidance. So what are you saying the purpose was? And I never said he did anything illegal
As you are saying the purpose of his company was tax avoidance, you clearly don't know though.
Unless you are also saying that the purpose of ALL companies is tax avoidance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean.
I am not saying all companies at all, I am saying his. So come on then, what was the purpose of it?
No, you'll have to start by showing how the purpose of his company was to avoid tax.
That should be easy, as you say you know that was its purpose."The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 94% of the UK population are so destitute that they leave nothing at all to their kids? £zero? I find that a bit hard to believe considering that most baby boomers are home owners. Perhaps the reason that 94% don't pay inheritance tax is because there are perfectly legitimate and highly publicised ways to avoid it and so people plan accordingly. This is from the House of Commons briefing paper on Inheritance Tax in September 2015: "Inheritance tax (IHT) is levied on the value of a person’s estate at the time of their death. The tax is charged at 40% above the tax-free threshold, which is £325,000 for 2015/16. In 2013/14 the tax raised £3.4 billion; receipts are forecast to be £4.2 billion in 2015/16.1 It is estimated that the tax was paid on 28,000 estates in 2013/14, representing 4.9% of all deaths." This information is available to all. I'm surprised you aren't better informed as you seem to hold such strong views on the subject. Thank you. You did miss out the bit about gifts but nonetheless you have provided the correct information about IHT thresholds. I understand from John McDonnell that he thinks that it is wrong for David Cameron to have received £300,000 from his fathers estate and not paid a penny in tax. By this argument, almost every parent who leaves anything to their children are also morally corrupt by avoiding IHT. Is the Labour position now that we should be volunteering to pay tax when none is due or just that IHT rules should apply to some people and not others? Or maybe they are looking to completely abolish tax free thresholds and thereby punish the 94% tax avoiders and make sure that they "pay their fair share." " I didn't think it necessary to post the entire HOC briefing, just the relevant part, which illustrates that I am correct in asserting that inheritance tax only affects 6% of people, not 'the entire nation', as you seem to think. I think the Labour position is that when the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed. Especially when he has openly tried to deceive the country about his financial affairs, changing his story five times over five days. And especially when he says he is going to release his full tax returns, and then releases an incomplete tax return, at midnight on a Saturday night. Now, no-one can say for certain that our Prime Minister has done anything illegal, as we don't know the full facts yet. We do know he has done something that most of us regard as immoral. But if he wants us to believe that he is a fit and proper person to run our country, he should perhaps stop doing things that make him look like he has something to hide from his electorate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes?" Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really don't care about tax avoidace or evasion either come to that. If my window cleaner doesn't declare every window washed, or my mechanic will knock of 10% for cash. I don't care. If Starbucks gets profits out of the country before they pay tax, fine, they have paid VAT on all sales, all their staff have paid income tax nd will pay other taxes when they spend their wages. So who cares if the company is registered in a low tax country and avoids a few % extra. they have contributed. But I am a bit annoyed at people jumping on others for doing exctly what they used to do before hastily hiding their behaviour. .
That's a perfectly honest answer.
You don't care that the employees paid their tax while the company avoided it's tax!!..
On the vat question... Exactly who paid the vat?"The customers paid the Sales tax, from money they had left over after paying tax on it, that was in turn handed over to the government, same as any other tax. What is your point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From 2015: The average price of property in the capital is £530,368 in comparison with the average for England and Wales of £190,275. — The region with the most significant annual price increase is London with a movement of 13.5 per cent. — The North East saw the only annual price fall with a movement of -3.2 per cent. So it would seem that most Londonders would be inheriting "a small fortune" if they were to receive the worth of a property in the capital
I think most people would consider inheriting £530,368 to be a small fortune.
Any comment on Red Ken?
Has he inherited a house that you want to talk about?
No, his tax avoidance schemes
Do you really want to get into that?
If you can detail which offshore tax avoidance schemes Ken Livingstone has used, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
No, the onshore ones
Sure, detail away.
Only I hope you aren't going to suggest that his legitimate, tax paying company was a tax avoidance scheme, otherwise you will also be suggesting that the directors of all legitimate companies are engaged in tax avoidance, which the many small business owners on Fab may well object to being called.
The purpose of his legitimate company was what exactly?
If you don't know, shouldn't you find out? It's best to get the facts before you start debating the legality of something.
I do know. Tax avoidance. So what are you saying the purpose was? And I never said he did anything illegal
As you are saying the purpose of his company was tax avoidance, you clearly don't know though.
Unless you are also saying that the purpose of ALL companies is tax avoidance, which I'm sure isn't what you mean.
I am not saying all companies at all, I am saying his. So come on then, what was the purpose of it?
No, you'll have to start by showing how the purpose of his company was to avoid tax.
That should be easy, as you say you know that was its purpose.
The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax.
What do you think he was doing, making shoes?"His company had employees. If you wish to employ people, having a company is the only legal way of doing so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. " Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about it, but was he meant to pay money on it? If so he is naughty. However, if it is legal what he has done and people don't think it should be allowed, who is to blame? Oh, his government." . I think, I'm not certain but if God forbid his mum dies in the next few years, he'll have to pay 40% tax on the 200,000 gift she made to him!. One time only gifts I think have the same rules as inheritance?. . Inheritance tax has a purpose, it's not just about collecting tax? Or it wasn't until they spun it that way. The fabric of capitalism is that wealth accrues at the top, this is very very bad for it!. So the old solution was to take some and shove it back in at the bottom, so to speak, this gives you a 'velocity'of money, basically it allows that capital to travel it's way back up the ladder from person to person, also known as commerce, trade, shopping and business... Now the idea is to abandon this old concept and to utilise a form of financialisation where you feed made up debt into the bottom and then that makes its way up the ladder?. That worked OK for about 30 or 40 years until we reach what they knew about when we went down this path... Peak debt!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another." What CandM4U is trying to imply is that anyone who runs a small business is actually a tax avoider. It's a pretty desperate way to try to take the attention away from Cameron, but there isn't much in the way of financial scandal that you can levy at significant Labour members. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't think it necessary to post the entire HOC briefing, just the relevant part, which illustrates that I am correct in asserting that inheritance tax only affects 6% of people, not 'the entire nation', as you seem to think. I think the Labour position is that when the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed. Especially when he has openly tried to deceive the country about his financial affairs, changing his story five times over five days. And especially when he says he is going to release his full tax returns, and then releases an incomplete tax return, at midnight on a Saturday night. Now, no-one can say for certain that our Prime Minister has done anything illegal, as we don't know the full facts yet. We do know he has done something that most of us regard as immoral. But if he wants us to believe that he is a fit and proper person to run our country, he should perhaps stop doing things that make him look like he has something to hide from his electorate." So if IHT only kicks in at £325,000 and gifts to children do not attract IHT as long as the parent does not pass within a given time... What exactly has David Cameron done any differently to anyone else in the country? You are completely contradicting yourself by suggesting that "the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed." You have already stated tghat IHT does not kick in until £325,000 and the rules about gifts are similarly very clear. As usual a great deal of hot air about absolutely nothing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't think it necessary to post the entire HOC briefing, just the relevant part, which illustrates that I am correct in asserting that inheritance tax only affects 6% of people, not 'the entire nation', as you seem to think. I think the Labour position is that when the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed. Especially when he has openly tried to deceive the country about his financial affairs, changing his story five times over five days. And especially when he says he is going to release his full tax returns, and then releases an incomplete tax return, at midnight on a Saturday night. Now, no-one can say for certain that our Prime Minister has done anything illegal, as we don't know the full facts yet. We do know he has done something that most of us regard as immoral. But if he wants us to believe that he is a fit and proper person to run our country, he should perhaps stop doing things that make him look like he has something to hide from his electorate. So if IHT only kicks in at £325,000 and gifts to children do not attract IHT as long as the parent does not pass within a given time... What exactly has David Cameron done any differently to anyone else in the country? You are completely contradicting yourself by suggesting that "the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed." You have already stated tghat IHT does not kick in until £325,000 and the rules about gifts are similarly very clear. As usual a great deal of hot air about absolutely nothing." 'No different to anyone else in this country?" By which you mean completely different to pretty much everyone in this country, except the wealthy. I note you've absolutely nothing to say on the deceitful way your chosen Prime Minister has conducted his affairs. How curious! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another. What CandM4U is trying to imply is that anyone who runs a small business is actually a tax avoider. It's a pretty desperate way to try to take the attention away from Cameron, but there isn't much in the way of financial scandal that you can levy at significant Labour members." I am not implying that at all. So what exactly was his business? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Andrew Carnegie: " By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks it condemnation of the millionaires unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction" ". In the Victorian era, it was actually seen as taboo to die wealthy without having a legacy. Hence why most towns have parks gifted to the people by wealthy land owners, or museums from wealthy industrialists, libraries, new towns... Of course that was when people were more religious and feared the afterlife condemnation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another. What CandM4U is trying to imply is that anyone who runs a small business is actually a tax avoider. It's a pretty desperate way to try to take the attention away from Cameron, but there isn't much in the way of financial scandal that you can levy at significant Labour members. I am not implying that at all. So what exactly was his business?" Once again, if you don't know what his business was, I find it odd that you seem so certain that its purpose was tax avoidance. But then you were absolutely certain that Labour governments had always left unemployment higher when they left power than when they entered, until the actual facts were pointed out to you. Facts...they are so inconvenient! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't think it necessary to post the entire HOC briefing, just the relevant part, which illustrates that I am correct in asserting that inheritance tax only affects 6% of people, not 'the entire nation', as you seem to think. I think the Labour position is that when the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed. Especially when he has openly tried to deceive the country about his financial affairs, changing his story five times over five days. And especially when he says he is going to release his full tax returns, and then releases an incomplete tax return, at midnight on a Saturday night. Now, no-one can say for certain that our Prime Minister has done anything illegal, as we don't know the full facts yet. We do know he has done something that most of us regard as immoral. But if he wants us to believe that he is a fit and proper person to run our country, he should perhaps stop doing things that make him look like he has something to hide from his electorate. So if IHT only kicks in at £325,000 and gifts to children do not attract IHT as long as the parent does not pass within a given time... What exactly has David Cameron done any differently to anyone else in the country? You are completely contradicting yourself by suggesting that "the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed." You have already stated tghat IHT does not kick in until £325,000 and the rules about gifts are similarly very clear. As usual a great deal of hot air about absolutely nothing." He was gifted £300k to avoid paying any tax. And then was given two payments of £100k on top. So yeah. Avoiding tax. That's the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about it, but was he meant to pay money on it? If so he is naughty. However, if it is legal what he has done and people don't think it should be allowed, who is to blame? Oh, his government.. I think, I'm not certain but if God forbid his mum dies in the next few years, he'll have to pay 40% tax on the 200,000 gift she made to him!. One time only gifts I think have the same rules as inheritance?. ." So it must be legal what he and thousands of others have done. Had a gift and if the person dies within 7 years he has to pay tax. If she dies after 7 years he doesn't have to pay. If the legal way to avoid tax can be used by Joe Bloggs then I suppose he can use it too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another. What CandM4U is trying to imply is that anyone who runs a small business is actually a tax avoider. It's a pretty desperate way to try to take the attention away from Cameron, but there isn't much in the way of financial scandal that you can levy at significant Labour members. I am not implying that at all. So what exactly was his business? Once again, if you don't know what his business was, I find it odd that you seem so certain that its purpose was tax avoidance. But then you were absolutely certain that Labour governments had always left unemployment higher when they left power than when they entered, until the actual facts were pointed out to you. Facts...they are so inconvenient! "And I find it odd that you can't tell me the purpose of his business and I'm sure I'm not the only one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't think it necessary to post the entire HOC briefing, just the relevant part, which illustrates that I am correct in asserting that inheritance tax only affects 6% of people, not 'the entire nation', as you seem to think. I think the Labour position is that when the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed. Especially when he has openly tried to deceive the country about his financial affairs, changing his story five times over five days. And especially when he says he is going to release his full tax returns, and then releases an incomplete tax return, at midnight on a Saturday night. Now, no-one can say for certain that our Prime Minister has done anything illegal, as we don't know the full facts yet. We do know he has done something that most of us regard as immoral. But if he wants us to believe that he is a fit and proper person to run our country, he should perhaps stop doing things that make him look like he has something to hide from his electorate. So if IHT only kicks in at £325,000 and gifts to children do not attract IHT as long as the parent does not pass within a given time... What exactly has David Cameron done any differently to anyone else in the country? You are completely contradicting yourself by suggesting that "the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed." You have already stated tghat IHT does not kick in until £325,000 and the rules about gifts are similarly very clear. As usual a great deal of hot air about absolutely nothing. He was gifted £300k to avoid paying any tax. And then was given two payments of £100k on top. So yeah. Avoiding tax. That's the point." No, he inherited £300k, the other £200k was the gift. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another. What CandM4U is trying to imply is that anyone who runs a small business is actually a tax avoider. It's a pretty desperate way to try to take the attention away from Cameron, but there isn't much in the way of financial scandal that you can levy at significant Labour members. I am not implying that at all. So what exactly was his business? Once again, if you don't know what his business was, I find it odd that you seem so certain that its purpose was tax avoidance. But then you were absolutely certain that Labour governments had always left unemployment higher when they left power than when they entered, until the actual facts were pointed out to you. Facts...they are so inconvenient!
And I find it odd that you can't tell me the purpose of his business and I'm sure I'm not the only one"They've gone to the Donald Trump school of avoiding the question | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The purpose of his company was so that he could channel his earnings through it so that he could pay the lower rate of corporation tax rather than the higher rate of income tax. What do you think he was doing, making shoes? Correct. And he was far from alone in doing so. Exactly the same as my company when I worked as a contractor, and many other people that market some skill or another. What CandM4U is trying to imply is that anyone who runs a small business is actually a tax avoider. It's a pretty desperate way to try to take the attention away from Cameron, but there isn't much in the way of financial scandal that you can levy at significant Labour members. I am not implying that at all. So what exactly was his business? Once again, if you don't know what his business was, I find it odd that you seem so certain that its purpose was tax avoidance. But then you were absolutely certain that Labour governments had always left unemployment higher when they left power than when they entered, until the actual facts were pointed out to you. Facts...they are so inconvenient!
And I find it odd that you can't tell me the purpose of his business and I'm sure I'm not the only one"And I find it odd that you can't give me any evidence for the purpose of his business being tax avoidance, as you have repeatedly asserted it was for tax avoidance, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't think it necessary to post the entire HOC briefing, just the relevant part, which illustrates that I am correct in asserting that inheritance tax only affects 6% of people, not 'the entire nation', as you seem to think. I think the Labour position is that when the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed. Especially when he has openly tried to deceive the country about his financial affairs, changing his story five times over five days. And especially when he says he is going to release his full tax returns, and then releases an incomplete tax return, at midnight on a Saturday night. Now, no-one can say for certain that our Prime Minister has done anything illegal, as we don't know the full facts yet. We do know he has done something that most of us regard as immoral. But if he wants us to believe that he is a fit and proper person to run our country, he should perhaps stop doing things that make him look like he has something to hide from his electorate. So if IHT only kicks in at £325,000 and gifts to children do not attract IHT as long as the parent does not pass within a given time... What exactly has David Cameron done any differently to anyone else in the country? You are completely contradicting yourself by suggesting that "the family of the Prime Minister use financial gifts amongst themselves in a way that looks like they are doing so to avoid paying inheritance taxes, it makes our Prime Minister look very, very suspicious indeed." You have already stated tghat IHT does not kick in until £325,000 and the rules about gifts are similarly very clear. As usual a great deal of hot air about absolutely nothing. He was gifted £300k to avoid paying any tax. And then was given two payments of £100k on top. So yeah. Avoiding tax. That's the point. No, he inherited £300k, the other £200k was the gift." That's what I meant. Still trying to wake up. Still under the £325k threshold though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about it, but was he meant to pay money on it? If so he is naughty. However, if it is legal what he has done and people don't think it should be allowed, who is to blame? Oh, his government.. I think, I'm not certain but if God forbid his mum dies in the next few years, he'll have to pay 40% tax on the 200,000 gift she made to him!. One time only gifts I think have the same rules as inheritance?. . So it must be legal what he and thousands of others have done. Had a gift and if the person dies within 7 years he has to pay tax. If she dies after 7 years he doesn't have to pay. If the legal way to avoid tax can be used by Joe Bloggs then I suppose he can use it too. " . Yes it's perfectly legal as far as I know!. I pointed this out on a debate about using foreign shell companies to avoid inheritance tax?. Whether it's moral is different question, I'd argue morals are tricky. Whether it's beneficial to capitalism is not a debate... It's very harmful. What we've been doing is kicking the legs out from under it for the last 40 years. The system is based on greed and quite ironically but beautifully I think, it's being killed by it as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin
How is it being taxed again?
The person who was originally taxed is dead, and the person who inherits the house is receiving is receiving unearned income on which they have paid no tax."So all the inheritance isn't being taxed again? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin "How is it being taxed again? The person who was originally taxed is dead, and the person who inherits the house is receiving unearned income on which they have paid no tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin
How is it being taxed again?
The person who was originally taxed is dead, and the person who inherits the house is receiving is receiving unearned income on which they have paid no tax.
So all the inheritance isn't being taxed again?"How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about it, but was he meant to pay money on it? If so he is naughty. However, if it is legal what he has done and people don't think it should be allowed, who is to blame? Oh, his government.. I think, I'm not certain but if God forbid his mum dies in the next few years, he'll have to pay 40% tax on the 200,000 gift she made to him!. One time only gifts I think have the same rules as inheritance?. . So it must be legal what he and thousands of others have done. Had a gift and if the person dies within 7 years he has to pay tax. If she dies after 7 years he doesn't have to pay. If the legal way to avoid tax can be used by Joe Bloggs then I suppose he can use it too. . Yes it's perfectly legal as far as I know!. I pointed this out on a debate about using foreign shell companies to avoid inheritance tax?. Whether it's moral is different question, I'd argue morals are tricky. Whether it's beneficial to capitalism is not a debate... It's very harmful. What we've been doing is kicking the legs out from under it for the last 40 years. The system is based on greed and quite ironically but beautifully I think, it's being killed by it as well "I think I agree with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin "Aye. Bit of a shitter. I suppose you could try to justify it by saying any increase in value(which relatives might benefit from) has been due to the economy in the intervening years doing well enough in the respect that the value of said home has increased. Thus that person is benefitting financially from the industry of the nation, therefore there has to be some nominal 'giving back' as recompense to a society which through its efforts has increased the value of it. Still waking up so a bit wooly. But that's how you could see it I suppose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know enough about it, but was he meant to pay money on it? If so he is naughty. However, if it is legal what he has done and people don't think it should be allowed, who is to blame? Oh, his government.. I think, I'm not certain but if God forbid his mum dies in the next few years, he'll have to pay 40% tax on the 200,000 gift she made to him!. One time only gifts I think have the same rules as inheritance?. . So it must be legal what he and thousands of others have done. Had a gift and if the person dies within 7 years he has to pay tax. If she dies after 7 years he doesn't have to pay. If the legal way to avoid tax can be used by Joe Bloggs then I suppose he can use it too. " EXACTLY. Thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin ". No your not being taxed again?. Your giving your money to somebody else who is then being taxed on that new income they have obtained!. If you spent the money, you'd expect the person you spent it with to pay tax on it?. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin
How is it being taxed again?
The person who was originally taxed is dead, and the person who inherits the house is receiving is receiving unearned income on which they have paid no tax.
So all the inheritance isn't being taxed again?
How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once."The person has probably paid tax all their life on their earnings that bought the house, assets. Then you get taxed on what you bought. Obviously the dead person won't as they are brown bread, but the treasury will get more tax on assets they don't own | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin
Aye. Bit of a shitter. I suppose you could try to justify it by saying any increase in value(which relatives might benefit from) has been due to the economy in the intervening years doing well enough in the respect that the value of said home has increased. Thus that person is benefitting financially from the industry of the nation, therefore there has to be some nominal 'giving back' as recompense to a society which through its efforts has increased the value of it.
Still waking up so a bit wooly. But that's how you could see it I suppose."That is definitely a justification for inheritance tax, that let's not forget, only 6% of the nation ever pay. Redistribution of wealth is also a justification. 94% do not pay any inheritance tax, ever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a proper debate on wealth in this country, and the damage that extraneous wealth is having on society." But we won't, and turkeys will continue to vote for christmas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin
How is it being taxed again?
The person who was originally taxed is dead, and the person who inherits the house is receiving is receiving unearned income on which they have paid no tax.
So all the inheritance isn't being taxed again?
How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once.
The person has probably paid tax all their life on their earnings that bought the house, assets. Then you get taxed on what you bought. Obviously the dead person won't as they are brown bread, but the treasury will get more tax on assets they don't own"If the person is dead, then they aren't being taxed. On the other hand, you are being taxed once on unearned income. By the way, do you consider yourself to be paying tax twice when you pay income tax and then VAT? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Andrew Carnegie: " By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks it condemnation of the millionaires unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction" .
In the Victorian era, it was actually seen as taboo to die wealthy without having a legacy.
Hence why most towns have parks gifted to the people by wealthy land owners, or museums from wealthy industrialists, libraries, new towns...
Of course that was when people were more religious and feared the afterlife condemnation"Good point. The religious element of social control is much reduced, so less people are inclined to care about society as long as they get their money. Most wealth in this country is now created by massively increased house prices. Much less to do with how hard you've worked or how creative you've been and more about being alive at the right time when the housing market created huge wealth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What annoys the hell out of me is, if you work all your life, pay tax on your money, buy a house which would probably take you over the threshold of inheritance tax, dies, then it has to be taxed again ! A modern day Dick Turpin .
No your not being taxed again?.
Your giving your money to somebody else who is then being taxed on that new income they have obtained!.
If you spent the money, you'd expect the person you spent it with to pay tax on it?.
"Yeah I suppose so, I was probably overthinking it. Either way, the treasury get a bit more money out of the person who probably already paid tax while paying for their house etc.....unless of course you spread your wealth out at least 7 years before you die so the recipient doesn't have to pay tax. Which brings us full circle | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Andrew Carnegie: " By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks it condemnation of the millionaires unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction" .
In the Victorian era, it was actually seen as taboo to die wealthy without having a legacy.
Hence why most towns have parks gifted to the people by wealthy land owners, or museums from wealthy industrialists, libraries, new towns...
Of course that was when people were more religious and feared the afterlife condemnation
Good point. The religious element of social control is much reduced, so less people are inclined to care about society as long as they get their money.
Most wealth in this country is now created by massively increased house prices. Much less to do with how hard you've worked or how creative you've been and more about being alive at the right time when the housing market created huge wealth.
"Then, if the religious element od social control has gone, let the moral element encode itself into law. I'm all for increasing inheritance tax and income tax, come to that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way, do you consider yourself to be paying tax twice when you pay income tax and then VAT?" Why do you ask? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way, do you consider yourself to be paying tax twice when you pay income tax and then VAT? Why do you ask?" Because that is a more appropriate example of someone being able to claim they have been unfairly taxed twice on their money - it happens to everyone, but no-one ever seems to be bothered about it. On the other hand, inheritance tax, which is paid by only 6% of people in this country, seems to be something that everyone thinks is unfair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once." During my life I have paid on average over 60% tax on all that I have aquired. When I pass that on to my children it is already tax paid assets, but they will have to pay tax on it again. taking my life time tax contribution effectively up to the 90% mark. The numbers are not very relevant, except when they get big enough that a bit of effort can make +/- 1% newsworthy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Andrew Carnegie: " By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks it condemnation of the millionaires unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction" .
In the Victorian era, it was actually seen as taboo to die wealthy without having a legacy.
Hence why most towns have parks gifted to the people by wealthy land owners, or museums from wealthy industrialists, libraries, new towns...
Of course that was when people were more religious and feared the afterlife condemnation
Good point. The religious element of social control is much reduced, so less people are inclined to care about society as long as they get their money.
Most wealth in this country is now created by massively increased house prices. Much less to do with how hard you've worked or how creative you've been and more about being alive at the right time when the housing market created huge wealth.
Then, if the religious element od social control has gone, let the moral element encode itself into law.
I'm all for increasing inheritance tax and income tax, come to that. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once. During my life I have paid on average over 60% tax on all that I have aquired. When I pass that on to my children it is already tax paid assets, but they will have to pay tax on it again. taking my life time tax contribution effectively up to the 90% mark. The numbers are not very relevant, except when they get big enough that a bit of effort can make +/- 1% newsworthy. " Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Andrew Carnegie: " By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks it condemnation of the millionaires unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction" .
In the Victorian era, it was actually seen as taboo to die wealthy without having a legacy.
Hence why most towns have parks gifted to the people by wealthy land owners, or museums from wealthy industrialists, libraries, new towns...
Of course that was when people were more religious and feared the afterlife condemnation
Good point. The religious element of social control is much reduced, so less people are inclined to care about society as long as they get their money.
Most wealth in this country is now created by massively increased house prices. Much less to do with how hard you've worked or how creative you've been and more about being alive at the right time when the housing market created huge wealth.
Then, if the religious element od social control has gone, let the moral element encode itself into law.
I'm all for increasing inheritance tax and income tax, come to that.
"Lowering the threshold(significantly) certainly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once. During my life I have paid on average over 60% tax on all that I have aquired. When I pass that on to my children it is already tax paid assets, but they will have to pay tax on it again. taking my life time tax contribution effectively up to the 90% mark. The numbers are not very relevant, except when they get big enough that a bit of effort can make +/- 1% newsworthy. Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax." Yes, it is, they will, I won't care much as I will be ash before that tax bill gets paid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way, do you consider yourself to be paying tax twice when you pay income tax and then VAT? Why do you ask? Because that is a more appropriate example of someone being able to claim they have been unfairly taxed twice on their money - it happens to everyone, but no-one ever seems to be bothered about it. On the other hand, inheritance tax, which is paid by only 6% of people in this country, seems to be something that everyone thinks is unfair. " I am sure some people are bothered if you asked them just as there will be people who are not....but that wasn't what I was discussing. I don't know if everyone thinks the inheritance tax it is unfair, but I think it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax." So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Andrew Carnegie: " By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks it condemnation of the millionaires unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction" .
In the Victorian era, it was actually seen as taboo to die wealthy without having a legacy.
Hence why most towns have parks gifted to the people by wealthy land owners, or museums from wealthy industrialists, libraries, new towns...
Of course that was when people were more religious and feared the afterlife condemnation
Good point. The religious element of social control is much reduced, so less people are inclined to care about society as long as they get their money.
Most wealth in this country is now created by massively increased house prices. Much less to do with how hard you've worked or how creative you've been and more about being alive at the right time when the housing market created huge wealth.
Then, if the religious element od social control has gone, let the moral element encode itself into law.
I'm all for increasing inheritance tax and income tax, come to that.
"Or if they were both lowered there might be more money going into the economy therefore creating tax in other ways and lowering the excuse/need for tax evasion schemes. Just a thought | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" By the way, do you consider yourself to be paying tax twice when you pay income tax and then VAT? Why do you ask? Because that is a more appropriate example of someone being able to claim they have been unfairly taxed twice on their money - it happens to everyone, but no-one ever seems to be bothered about it. On the other hand, inheritance tax, which is paid by only 6% of people in this country, seems to be something that everyone thinks is unfair. I am sure some people are bothered if you asked them just as there will be people who are not....but that wasn't what I was discussing. I don't know if everyone thinks the inheritance tax it is unfair, but I think it is. " Funnily, I think that not taxing it is both unfair and immoral, but there ya go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion. "I think it was the gift from his mother that made it go to 500 that people are going on about, I am surprised you forgot that bit
Lots of people do it though and it is legal, so I can't see it being an issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion. "Do you think this kind of hyperbole adds to the debate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Funnily, I think that not taxing it is both unfair and immoral, but there ya go. " Ok Just shows we all think a different way | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of people do it though and it is legal, so I can't see it being an issue." It's not an issue, it's petty jealousy I would love to gift my children 200k or more, but I can't quite afford that many 0's | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is it being taxed again? If you inherit a house and are taxed on it, you are being taxed once. During my life I have paid on average over 60% tax on all that I have aquired. When I pass that on to my children it is already tax paid assets, but they will have to pay tax on it again. taking my life time tax contribution effectively up to the 90% mark. The numbers are not very relevant, except when they get big enough that a bit of effort can make +/- 1% newsworthy. " You said what I was trying to say and failing. Ta | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion. "No-one has suggested that David Cameron hasn't paid inheritance tax on £300,000 - by saying that, you are trying to obscure the issue. What has been suggested is that his mother may have gifted him £200,000 in order to reduce a £500,000 inheritance to below the £325,000 IHT threshold, and avoid paying inheritance tax on £200,000 of inheritance. If the family of the Prime Minister have colluded so that the Prime Minister can avoid paying his taxes, that is the opposite of a non-story. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of people do it though and it is legal, so I can't see it being an issue. It's not an issue, it's petty jealousy I would love to gift my children 200k or more, but I can't quite afford that many 0's " I am not sure about the jealousy bit but exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of people do it though and it is legal, so I can't see it being an issue. It's not an issue, it's petty jealousy I would love to gift my children 200k or more, but I can't quite afford that many 0's " Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion.
I think it was the gift from his mother that made it go to 500 that people are going on about, I am surprised you forgot that bit
Lots of people do it though and it is legal, so I can't see it being an issue."Why? Neither is subject to any kind of taxation unless the mother passes before a certain time AND her estate is subject to IHT (which it will be in this case). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion.
No-one has suggested that David Cameron hasn't paid inheritance tax on £300,000 - by saying that, you are trying to obscure the issue.
What has been suggested is that his mother may have gifted him £200,000 in order to reduce a £500,000 inheritance to below the £325,000 IHT threshold, and avoid paying inheritance tax on £200,000 of inheritance.
If the family of the Prime Minister have colluded so that the Prime Minister can avoid paying his taxes, that is the opposite of a non-story."Relevant word being 'may'. She aint dead yet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion.
No-one has suggested that David Cameron hasn't paid inheritance tax on £300,000 - by saying that, you are trying to obscure the issue.
What has been suggested is that his mother may have gifted him £200,000 in order to reduce a £500,000 inheritance to below the £325,000 IHT threshold, and avoid paying inheritance tax on £200,000 of inheritance.
If the family of the Prime Minister have colluded so that the Prime Minister can avoid paying his taxes, that is the opposite of a non-story.
Relevant word being 'may'.
She aint dead yet"I guess that's why I wrote the relevant word, then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why? Neither is subject to any kind of taxation unless the mother passes before a certain time AND her estate is subject to IHT (which it will be in this case). " But that is the point of it being in the news, so it is relevant to the subject but you seem to be leaving that bit out to score a point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion.
No-one has suggested that David Cameron hasn't paid inheritance tax on £300,000 - by saying that, you are trying to obscure the issue.
What has been suggested is that his mother may have gifted him £200,000 in order to reduce a £500,000 inheritance to below the £325,000 IHT threshold, and avoid paying inheritance tax on £200,000 of inheritance.
If the family of the Prime Minister have colluded so that the Prime Minister can avoid paying his taxes, that is the opposite of a non-story.
Relevant word being 'may'.
She aint dead yet
I guess that's why I wrote the relevant word, then. "So its a non story then Maybe she gave him the money to buy a new cock after getting his bitten off by a pig eh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why? Neither is subject to any kind of taxation unless the mother passes before a certain time AND her estate is subject to IHT (which it will be in this case). But that is the point of it being in the news, so it is relevant to the subject but you seem to be leaving that bit out to score a point" _oo hot is desperate for people to just forget about the stink surrounding David Cameron's tax dealings and move on. You will notice he never addresses any of the suspicious ways in which the Prime Minister has avoided being honest with the public about his financial affairs. Particularly why the Prime Minister said he would release his full tax returns...and then released his incomplete tax returns at midnight on a Saturday night. It's all Labour's fault, too! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Unless your estate is worth over £325,000, your children won't be paying anything. And if it is, the tax is only on the proportion over £325,000. 94% of people in the UK never pay any inheritance tax. So David Cameron not paying inheritance tax on his £300,000 is as was said - a bit of a non story whipped up by the lunatics in opposition who should know better. If IHT was not payable, why should he pay it. Finally common sense arrives in the discussion.
No-one has suggested that David Cameron hasn't paid inheritance tax on £300,000 - by saying that, you are trying to obscure the issue.
What has been suggested is that his mother may have gifted him £200,000 in order to reduce a £500,000 inheritance to below the £325,000 IHT threshold, and avoid paying inheritance tax on £200,000 of inheritance.
If the family of the Prime Minister have colluded so that the Prime Minister can avoid paying his taxes, that is the opposite of a non-story.
Relevant word being 'may'.
She aint dead yet
I guess that's why I wrote the relevant word, then.
So its a non story then
Maybe she gave him the money to buy a new cock after getting his bitten off by a pig eh "The press and public will decide if this is a non-story or not. And it seems they have decided that it is very much a story indeed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'." Which is what DC's mother has done, she had a few fivers down the back of the sofa she wasn't using, so gave it to her son who will possibly buy a play station and some games giving work and income to others, and pay VAT etc. on spending it so the government gets a share. win win I say... good for DC's mum helping us all out like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'. Which is what DC's mother has done, she had a few fivers down the back of the sofa she wasn't using, so gave it to her son who will possibly buy a play station and some games giving work and income to others, and pay VAT etc. on spending it so the government gets a share. win win I say... good for DC's mum helping us all out like that." We're all in it together! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'. Which is what DC's mother has done, she had a few fivers down the back of the sofa she wasn't using, so gave it to her son who will possibly buy a play station and some games giving work and income to others, and pay VAT etc. on spending it so the government gets a share. win win I say... good for DC's mum helping us all out like that." Dunno if thats tongue in cheek but that's what my dad did when he knew he was dying. He fell well below IHT but gave me a decent pot of his money so he could hopefully see me enjoy it. And what is wrong with that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'. Which is what DC's mother has done, she had a few fivers down the back of the sofa she wasn't using, so gave it to her son who will possibly buy a play station and some games giving work and income to others, and pay VAT etc. on spending it so the government gets a share. win win I say... good for DC's mum helping us all out like that. Dunno if thats tongue in cheek but that's what my dad did when he knew he was dying. He fell well below IHT but gave me a decent pot of his money so he could hopefully see me enjoy it. And what is wrong with that?" Nothing at all. But as David Cameron is already a millionaire, and he may have been subject to the inheritance tax threshold, it may be less likely his mother was motivated in the same way as your father. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'. Which is what DC's mother has done, she had a few fivers down the back of the sofa she wasn't using, so gave it to her son who will possibly buy a play station and some games giving work and income to others, and pay VAT etc. on spending it so the government gets a share. win win I say... good for DC's mum helping us all out like that. Dunno if thats tongue in cheek but that's what my dad did when he knew he was dying. He fell well below IHT but gave me a decent pot of his money so he could hopefully see me enjoy it. And what is wrong with that? Nothing at all. But as David Cameron is already a millionaire, and he may have been subject to the inheritance tax threshold, it may be less likely his mother was motivated in the same way as your father." You are just making this up as you go along | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wanting to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate in society and more fairly share the burden of all taxation is pretty much the opposite of 'petty jealousy'. Which is what DC's mother has done, she had a few fivers down the back of the sofa she wasn't using, so gave it to her son who will possibly buy a play station and some games giving work and income to others, and pay VAT etc. on spending it so the government gets a share. win win I say... good for DC's mum helping us all out like that. Dunno if thats tongue in cheek but that's what my dad did when he knew he was dying. He fell well below IHT but gave me a decent pot of his money so he could hopefully see me enjoy it. And what is wrong with that? Nothing at all. But as David Cameron is already a millionaire, and he may have been subject to the inheritance tax threshold, it may be less likely his mother was motivated in the same way as your father. You are just making this up as you go along" Yes, I am making a supposition based on their actions, which by it's very nature is not based on fact, as all the facts are not available. So I am indeed 'making it up' as I go along. That doesn't mean it is incorrect though, does it? You are equally guilty of making it up as you go along if you suppose that they were not intending to avoid inheritance taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said earlier, it's +/- 1% or so, it's only the number of 0's that make it a news story. I do object to DC's warped interpretation of calling other immoral when he is not really any different. but guess what, I never paid tax on the £35 quid I made on Ebay last month so I am just as bad, and have no right to complain at his family. " You are not in a position to affect the laws which govern UK taxes to your advantage though. David Cameron is, so the circumstances are completely different, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry but no. The current Labour incumbents would have 99% living tax rate and 100% inheritance tax rate to do what with?" You meant a 99% marginal tax rate and a 100% inheritance tax. What would they do with it? Well, that's up to them to propose to the electorate. But they might include: Reducing the obscene levels of wealth inequality in the UK; Ensuring every child in the UK is removed from the debilitating effects of poverty; Building an education system that ranks alongside the best in the world; Doubling or tripling teachers pay, so that teaching our next generation is rightfully regarded as one of the most important things society can do; Investing in better hospitals; Creating the house building programme that the UK needs, so that everyone has the opportunity to own their own home. Paying carers a decent wage to ensure that our elderly are well looked after Ensuring a good state pension for all, so it's not just the rich that can enjoy their retirement; Investing in world class infrastructure - building railways and roads and airports that are fit for the 21st century; Ensuring that the UK is one of the best countries in the world for military veterans Building an electricity generation capability that the UK will need over the next 30 years - without the need to borrow the money from China You might not agree with the means, but if you can't even see the ends - of a better, fairer more equal society for all - then I think it says more about you than it does John McDonnell. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
