Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Did he perhaps mean to type "100% people should be paying inheritance tax"? Because nobody in their right mind would actually suggest that once you die everything you own goes to the big G .

In a communist utopia, no one owns property comrade.

 

[Rita_Poon]

It's not a crime, don't be silly. I just think it would be a much fairer and more equitable society if family wealth didn't stay entrenched in the same place.

Your children wouldn't need that extra leg up (that others can't provide), because there would be plenty more to go round. You also mentioned it as being some sort of Communist ideal at some point which is also false, because I'm not advocating state ownership of property, just relatively radical rates of redistribution when it's no longer being used by the owners.

Given how much wealth is being hoarded, I think most kids would benefit from such a plan, not lose out.

However as I hope I've made clear, I accept these ideas pretty much go against the natural human instinct to look after our own, and no serious party would ever stand on such a platform, therefore it'll never happen. You would actually require some sort of Communist revolution, and I don't believe Communism is a workable form of government at a national level (my take is that it requires that every participant know each other).

Think it was me that mentioned 'communistic ideals'.


The have's are happy having and will fight with all they have to keep hold. Those knackered ppe contracts don't award themselves you know. oh.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Inheritance tax can cause considerable problems for some, especially if they get lumbered with an old estate (assets) but no cash. Particularly if itsvhard to sell.

Not that I feel too sorry for the blue bloods it usually happens to.

 

[Xizor]

Think it was me that mentioned 'communistic ideals'.

No, it was mentioned yesterday as well. I just wanted to pick up on that and make it clear I'm not espousing communism.

 

[Xizor]

I also don't expect many people at all to agree, and I don't think any argument I could put forward would be all that convincing anyway. It was just mentioned in passing yesterday, some people on here seemed to be utterly flummoxed by the idea (almost aggressively so) and I wanted to give my rationale behind supporting the position.

And then some people apparently thought I was advocating immediately founding some sort of property gestapo to come round after a death in the family and start making inventories for the state when they weren't looking.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

I also don't expect many people at all to agree, and I don't think any argument I could put forward would be all that convincing anyway. It was just mentioned in passing yesterday, some people on here seemed to be utterly flummoxed by the idea (almost aggressively so) and I wanted to give my rationale behind supporting the position.

And then some people apparently thought I was advocating immediately founding some sort of property gestapo to come round after a death in the family and start making inventories for the state when they weren't looking.

Y'know Starmer is actually planning that?

Post budget on here will be fantastic. I especially await Pete's Telegraph driven meltdown.

 

[peteblue]

Y'know Starmer is actually planning that?

Post budget on here will be fantastic. I especially await Pete's Telegraph driven meltdown.

Should be a good night… obviously not for taxpayers of course

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Should be a good night… obviously not for taxpayers of course

I'm not sure it has been a good night for taxpayers in a very long time, depending on your criteria.

It's been pretty obvious the country needs properly funding in various areas and what we've usually seen is gimmicks, low value giveaways to the majority (often pulled back with the other hand), and favourable arrangements for the wealthiest.

Would merrily see the recent ni reductions reinstated, for instance, because things like social care haven't been addressed.

To me, whilst little boosts might feel nice, there's a bigger picture. Which a lot don't grasp. Or care about.

 

[StDomingosGringo]

The elephant in the room is opportunity to succeed & build a life.

With luxuries like secure housing & decent paying jobs that allow working people a decent standard of living with a comfortable retirement.

And then to pass on the fruits of their labour, taxed fairly, to those they love when they shuffle off this mortal coil.

By any metric that has become harder for each successive generation that have come of age since Thatcher.

We shouldn’t have a society where one of the few remaining options to have that opportunity, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is having a Fairy Godmother in the family.

Ask yourself what your working, adult children wouldn’t have without your financial help.

Would they have been able to buy a home? Would their lives have spiralled badly if you hadn’t helped cover rent or bills for a few months along the way?

That’s a broken system & the answer isn’t to protect Fairy Godmothers.

 

[catcherintherye]

Why should it be any of you're business what he does with his money, he earned not you.

Where have I said it's my money.

I've pointed out to him, I'd be happy to pay inheritance tax on my assets, which was a question he suggested I wouldn't. He's wrong. As usual.

He made his business public the moment he made value judgements on how people treat their assets.

 

[catcherintherye]

From a poster saying that everyone should have to pay 100% inheritance tax.

You missed my point. Pete suggested people would all avoid paying inheritance tax. I've pointed out that's not true.

Id rather pay IHT, even at 100% if it meant I paid less tax on my income. I think working people should be taxed less.

 

[catcherintherye]

Should be a good night… obviously not for taxpayers of course

It can't get much worse, after 14 years and the highest tax rate in about 70 years like.

 

[catcherintherye]

A poster called Xizor or something similar two or three pages back, thought it's a crime that anything should be passed onto you're Children, or something or other. Catcher saying something similar.

Hold on mate, I haven't said anything like that. I have said that I'm happy to pay some IHT, even if it means my kids wouldn't get all assets, in response to Pete proclaiming we would all try to avoid all IHT.

Thats just not true, as I disproved.

Nothing about it being a crime to leave stuff behind. That's just people being snowflakes and getting easily offended. Pete made a point, I corrected him.

 

[mahermi1]

Hold on mate, I haven't said anything like that. I have said that I'm happy to pay some IHT, even if it means my kids wouldn't get all assets, in response to Pete proclaiming we would all try to avoid all IHT.

Thats just not true, as I disproved.

Nothing about it being a crime to leave stuff behind. That's just people being snowflakes and getting easily offended. Pete made a point, I corrected him.

Fair enough pal i must have misread you're post, I just saw 100% and saw my arse.
As the law of it the land states you're house doesn't go to yours kids anyway, only part of the proceeds after the house is sold. Least that's the way I've read it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[peteblue]

Hold on mate, I haven't said anything like that. I have said that I'm happy to pay some IHT, even if it means my kids wouldn't get all assets, in response to Pete proclaiming we would all try to avoid all IHT.

Thats just not true, as I disproved.

Nothing about it being a crime to leave stuff behind. That's just people being snowflakes and getting easily offended. Pete made a point, I corrected him.

You made your opinion, you didn’t ‘correct’ me…..