The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (158 Viewers)

[djr8369]

There is nothing wrong with jobs going elsewhere from the UK if the EU gives the loan to help it happen.

What was this?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

---

[djr8369]

So now the money being taxed by Labour wouldn't have been earned by the person who has died?
.

It’s not earned by the person inheriting it. It’s pretty obvious.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

So now the money being taxed by Labour wouldn't have been earned by the person who has died?

Would you support it if it was done by the Tories? Of course you would.

The person who dies doesn’t pay the tax, the person who inherits it does. That is who the tax laws apply to. What next? No one ever pays tax because someone somewhere once paid tax on “that money”?

I know this will blow your mind, but I’m a Labour supporter because their economic plan matches most closely to my beliefs of what’s best for the economy. Not the other way around. I rejoined Labour in 2015 (before the leadership campaign) and voted for Corbyn when it was clear this was the direction he wanted to take the party.

Moreover, I’m not a Tory because they don’t have a coherent economic plan for the majority. They exist solely to allow the wealthy to retain as much of their wealth as possible and try and crowbar an ideology around that, which has repeatedly been shown not to work. They are a lobby group for the wealthy and nothing more. They then play a bunch of dirty tricks and giveaways like right to buy to get votes from rubes who think they’ll help them.

 

[Astute]

More straw man arguments. I use the US as an example because it is the Tories' end goal to be like them. The ideology doesn't work.

More like if you can have a go at the Tories you will. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is that even a deaf person can hear you defending Labour whatever happens.

Our lives in the UK were changed forever because of the tax raising plans Labour put in place. This time will be different we hear. Only the rich will have a higher burden of tax. But it doesn't look true already.

Still waiting for you to eat your words on trying to defend Gordon Brown.

 

[Astute]

How does this related to his post at all?

So you didn't notice him say about jobs leaving the UK?

 

[Astute]

The person who dies doesn’t pay the tax, the person who inherits it does. That is who the tax laws apply to. What next? No one ever pays tax because someone somewhere once paid tax on “that money”?

I know this will blow your mind, but I’m a Labour supporter because their economic plan matches most closely to my beliefs of what’s best for the economy. Not the other way around. I rejoined Labour in 2015 (before the leadership campaign) and voted for Corbyn when it was clear this was the direction he wanted to take the party.

Moreover, I’m not a Tory because they don’t have a coherent economic plan for the majority. They exist solely to allow the wealthy to retain as much of their wealth as possible and try and crowbar an ideology around that, which has repeatedly been shown not to work. They are a lobby group for the wealthy and nothing more. They then play a bunch of dirty tricks and giveaways like right to buy to get votes from rubes who think they’ll help them.

So the money gets shared out then they pay the tax? Not at all. It gets taxed at source.

At this rate it won't be long before people stop saving for retirement altogether. They won't want to graft all their life to hand it to the tax man. Then you have the rich who will protect theirs. So the man on the street will pay more. Fantastic.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

More like if you can have a go at the Tories you will. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is that even a deaf person can hear you defending Labour whatever happens.

Our lives in the UK were changed forever because of the tax raising plans Labour put in place. This time will be different we hear. Only the rich will have a higher burden of tax. But it doesn't look true already.

Still waiting for you to eat your words on trying to defend Gordon Brown.

And you wonder why your comprehension skills are compared to gnats

 

[djr8369]

So you didn't notice him say about jobs leaving the UK?

But your point makes no sense in the context he mentions jobs. It’s like you’ve seen the word jobs and found the first thing you can use to bash the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

So the money gets shared out then they pay the tax? Not at all. It gets taxed at source.

At this rate it won't be long before people stop saving for retirement altogether. They won't want to graft all their life to hand it to the tax man. Then you have the rich who will protect theirs. So the man on the street will pay more. Fantastic.

Firstly. Anyone who has an estate worth over half a million quid is not “the man on the street” unless they hit the housing lottery.

Technically it’s taxed at source but only if you’re giving it to certain people. Charity donations aren’t taxed and neither is money to your spouse. Also the threshold for giving a house to your children is well above the average house price, so again not the man on the street.

Don’t pretend we are talking about an bunch of truck drivers who have been putting pennies in a giant whiskey bottle for thirty years. Only the wealthy get hit by IHT. It’s really not an issue for the vast majority of people.

The reality is IHT is a tax on the very wealthy and that’s why they bitch about it. In the vast majority of cases it doesn’t touch “the man on the street” let you’ve been conned into thinking it does by said wealthy. That’s the Tory con. They aren’t on your side.

Edit: just looked it up. 95.4% of all deaths carry no inheritance tax at all. “Man on the street” my arse.

 

[SBAndy]

Moreover, one of the points of inheritance tax when it comes to property is to keep the market liquid. If property could be handed down through the generations en masse then you’d find that there would be limited stock for sale.

 

[shmmeee]

Moreover, one of the points of inheritance tax when it comes to property is to keep the market liquid. If property could be handed down through the generations en masse then you’d find that there would be limited stock for sale.

Well it can, and there is. So I’d say you’re right on that one.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Firstly. Anyone who has an estate worth over half a million quid is not “the man on the street” unless they hit the housing lottery.

Technically it’s taxed at source but only if you’re giving it to certain people. Charity donations aren’t taxed and neither is money to your spouse. Also the threshold for giving a house to your children is well above the average house price, so again not the man on the street.

Don’t pretend we are talking about an bunch of truck drivers who have been putting pennies in a giant whiskey bottle for thirty years. Only the wealthy get hit by IHT. It’s really not an issue for the vast majority of people.

The reality is IHT is a tax on the very wealthy and that’s why they bitch about it. In the vast majority of cases it doesn’t touch “the man on the street” let you’ve been conned into thinking it does by said wealthy. That’s the Tory con. They aren’t on your side.

Edit: just looked it up. 95.4% of all deaths carry no inheritance tax at all. “Man on the street” my arse.

So someone living in a 2 bed flat in Battersea or Tooting Broadway which may easily be worth 500k can't claim to be "the man on the street" .(unless you mean homeless). You talk a great deal of tosh.

 

[shmmeee]

So someone living in a 2 bed flat in Battersea or Tooting Broadway which may easily be worth 500k can't claim to be "the man on the street" .(unless you mean homeless). You know a great deal of crap.

5% of people isn’t a majority. Even a thicky like you should be able to work that out

Also: someone who won the housing lottery by definition didn’t earn that wealth and so it should be taxed. Unless you don’t want a capitalist meritocracy.

 

[Astute]

And you wonder why your comprehension skills are compared to gnats

Mine?

So are you disputing that I brought up a quote of yours looking for an excuse for what Brown did to pensions and of course blamed my generation for what he did and the war crimes Bliar committed?

The crap you come out with in defence of the undefendable is atrocious sometimes.

 

[SBAndy]

Well it can, and there is. So I’d say you’re right on that one.

My point being if property(ies) were accumulated through 10 generations with no tax liability it would normalise some absolutely colossal portfolios. IHT generally sees the breakup of portfolios rather than the taxing of single properties.

 

[shmmeee]

My point being if property(ies) were accumulated through 10 generations with no tax liability it would normalise some absolutely colossal portfolios. IHT generally sees the breakup of portfolios rather than the taxing of single properties.

Large landowners don’t pay IHT. It’s all owned by trusts and stuff that are exempt thanks to the Tories and useful idiots who think the landed gentry are on their side.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Mine?

So are you disputing that I brought up a quote of yours looking for an excuse for what Brown did to pensions and of course blamed my generation for what he did and the war crimes Bliar committed?

The crap you come out with in defence of the undefendable is atrocious sometimes.

How many times do I have to say I never defended it?

Blair and Brown were part of your generation-isn't that an objective fact?

 

[Astute]

Edit: just looked it up. 95.4% of all deaths carry no inheritance tax at all. “Man on the street” my arse.

You are right. At this moment it is a tax on the rich. You are trying to defend It becoming a tax on the man on the street.

OK. Let's take ut easy so you understand.

Average house value these days. Well under the tax band of £450,000 IIRC. If it isn't it is very close to this. McDonnell wants to reduce this to £125,000. The vast majority of homes would then come into it. So would it still be your 95.4% that wouldn't pay? No. Just about everyone who owns a home.

Nearly as bad as the tax grabs last time Labour were in. But somehow they will still get defended.

I can't get my head around you wanting this.

 

[Grendel]

Is that relevant?

Seek the help you need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if I said say Chairman Mao (who Slaughtered 75 million i believe) would I still require help?

 

[shmmeee]

You are right. At this moment it is a tax on the rich. You are trying to defend It becoming a tax on the man on the street.

OK. Let's take ut easy so you understand.

Average house value these days. Well under the tax band of £450,000 IIRC. If it isn't it is very close to this. McDonnell wants to reduce this to £125,000. The vast majority of homes would then come into it. So would it still be your 95.4% that wouldn't pay? No. Just about everyone who owns a home.

Nearly as bad as the tax grabs last time Labour were in. But somehow they will still get defended.

I can't get my head around you wanting this.

“We are looking at it,” Mr McDonnell told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme when asked if he was “attracted to the idea” of scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a different system.

“It might be one of those ideas and we are consulting on it at the moment... I think it’s interesting.”

That’s the quote you are basing this off?

 

[Astute]

Moreover, one of the points of inheritance tax when it comes to property is to keep the market liquid. If property could be handed down through the generations en masse then you’d find that there would be limited stock for sale.

They already nearly always get sold. That is unless it is going to one person or one can afford to pay the others.

Fuck me. Vote Labour. Get taxed to death. You are welcome to McDonnell and his hundreds of billions he wants to spend. I will be out of here in just under 3 and a half years.

 

[Astute]

How many times do I have to say I never defended it?

Blair and Brown were part of your generation-isn't that an objective fact?

You said 'even if Brown did cause the end of final salary pensions' as though it wasn't true. But everyone knows it is the truth.

 

[Astute]

“We are looking at it,” Mr McDonnell told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme when asked if he was “attracted to the idea” of scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a different system.

“It might be one of those ideas and we are consulting on it at the moment... I think it’s interesting.”

That’s the quote you are basing this off?

So your defence now is it might not happen. OK.

 

[Astute]

“We are looking at it,” Mr McDonnell told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme when asked if he was “attracted to the idea” of scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a different system.

“It might be one of those ideas and we are consulting on it at the moment... I think it’s interesting.”

That’s the quote you are basing this off?

Labour ‘looking at’ plan to slash inheritance tax threshold, McDonnell says

It is presently £475,000. He wants just £125,000.

So Labour only tax the rich? Nothing like last time?

 

[Grendel]

So your defence now is it might not happen. OK.

there is an interview somewhere in which the truly hapless shadow minister for undecation Angela Raynor confirmed they would stop cutting taxes like inheritance tax for the rich. When people looked astonished she blustered its capital gains tax which Tories have cut

Mr Neil then pointed out it’s not been cut

it’s a car crash of sizemic proportions

 

[SBAndy]

Labour ‘looking at’ plan to slash inheritance tax threshold, McDonnell says

It is presently £475,000. He wants just £125,000.

So Labour only tax the rich? Nothing like last time?

There’s no attributable quotes to back up the notion that it’ll be reduced to £125k. Besides, knowing the progressive nature of Labour’s tax initiatives it’ll be incremental tax bands up from that rather than a set %age as it is currently.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

With the Inheritance Tax I kind of agree with both of you. It has (probably) been taxed at source but at the same time should someone have the large amounts of power and influence those assets bring just because someone gave it to them? That's an aristocracy.

I understand and have no issue with people wanting to provide for their children/grandchildren with their wealth after they've gone, but I do take issue that this should give those people power and influence they have not shown they deserve, especially a few generations in when the family has lost all sense of their privilege and become of the mindset they're superior to others.

So personally I'd prefer a system whereby all the assets are held separately, say in trust, and the beneficiaries can only draw down a specific amount on it each year, say the national average wage or a multiplier of it, to prevent them having power and influence they've not earned and hopefully keep them more grounded. Moreover it would prevent one individual blowing the lot and thus could provide security for many generations or in the case of the uber rich almost in perpetuity due to interest. (Property could either be sold and proceeds added to funds or could be lived in by a beneficiary and upkeep coming from the estate.). With the likely connections they will have due to the deceased they're likely to be able to earn a good living and be influential anyway, but at least there would be an element of work involved

In exchange for this I'd probably be OK for those 'earnings' to be considered tax-free.

 

[shmmeee]

Labour ‘looking at’ plan to slash inheritance tax threshold, McDonnell says

It is presently £475,000. He wants just £125,000.

So Labour only tax the rich? Nothing like last time?

You haven’t posted anything to back up your assertion that that’s what he “wants”, and even if he did that’s not how Labour makes policy. There was nothing about changing IHT in the 2017 manifesto.

Hypothetically, I’d have to see the detail. £125k seems like a low threshold, but also most people I know won’t get anything like that in inheritance and I’d assume the current exceptions for family homes/spouses/ etc would still apply.

I do think you’re overestimating exactly how many average people, especially under 40, have housing wealth these days. We have a generational inequality issue, as well as a top 10% v everyone else issue, as well as a housing issue. These concern me far more than Joe Bloggs only getting £130k as a gift instead of £140k TBH.

 

[Astute]

there is an interview somewhere in which the truly hapless shadow minister for undecation Angela Raynor confirmed they would stop cutting taxes like inheritance tax for the rich. When people looked astonished she blustered its capital gains tax which Tories have cut

Mr Neil then pointed out it’s not been cut

it’s a car crash of sizemic proportions

Maybe starting to understand why the Labour deputy leader resigned today. This isn't the Labour party we know. And we all know what happened last time Labour were in power. It wasn't the Labour party we know.

 

[Grendel]

With the Inheritance Tax I kind of agree with both of you. It has (probably) been taxed at source but at the same time should someone have the large amounts of power and influence those assets bring just because someone gave it to them? That's an aristocracy.

I understand and have no issue with people wanting to provide for their children/grandchildren with their wealth after they've gone, but I do take issue that this should give those people power and influence they have not shown they deserve, especially a few generations in when the family has lost all sense of their privilege and become of the mindset they're superior to others.

So personally I'd prefer a system whereby all the assets are held separately, say in trust, and the beneficiaries can only draw down a specific amount on it each year, say the national average wage or a multiplier of it, to prevent them having power and influence they've not earned and hopefully keep them more grounded. Moreover it would prevent one individual blowing the lot and thus could provide security for many generations or in the case of the uber rich almost in perpetuity due to interest. (Property could either be sold and proceeds added to funds or could be lived in by a beneficiary and upkeep coming from the estate.). With the likely connections they will have due to the deceased they're likely to be able to earn a good living and be influential anyway, but at least there would be an element of work involved

In exchange for this I'd probably be OK for those 'earnings' to be considered tax-free.

So a couple who live with young children who have appointed a guardian in a will should have their million pound has swallowed by the state and the children have limited access - yes excellent a truly Stalinist campaign - the state should not inherited dead people’s wealth

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You said 'even if Brown did cause the end of final salary pensions' as though it wasn't true. But everyone knows it is the truth.

It isn't denial. The truth is you originally came up with mistakes made by Gordon Brown a couple of hundred pages ago when the discussion was about mistakes made by the previous generation. You banged on and on about it but I made little or no comment on it at the time. What seems to keep escaping you is that he is part of the generation that fucked up.

I also don't know how many times I've laid into the Labour Party on this thread and elsewhere. It's nauseatingly tedious that your comprehension is so poor

 

[shmmeee]

Maybe starting to understand why the Labour deputy leader resigned today. This isn't the Labour party we know. And we all know what happened last time Labour were in power. It wasn't the Labour party we know.

You realise Watson was a Brownite, right?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

there is an interview somewhere in which the truly hapless shadow minister for undecation Angela Raynor confirmed they would stop cutting taxes like inheritance tax for the rich. When people looked astonished she blustered its capital gains tax which Tories have cut

Mr Neil then pointed out it’s not been cut

it’s a car crash of sizemic proportions

Attempts to make witty point about poorly educated shadow minister

Can't spell

 

[Astute]

You haven’t posted anything to back up your assertion that that’s what he “wants”, and even if he did that’s not how Labour makes policy. There was nothing about changing IHT in the 2017 manifesto.

Hypothetically, I’d have to see the detail. £125k seems like a low threshold, but also most people I know won’t get anything like that in inheritance and I’d assume the current exceptions for family homes/spouses/ etc would still apply.

I do think you’re overestimating exactly how many average people, especially under 40, have housing wealth these days.

2017 manifesto? He said it recently.

So where did I say 40 year olds? Making up things again I see. Those close to dying are not normally 40.

Family home for spouse yes.

School teacher? You need to try harder.

 

[shmmeee]

2017 manifesto? He said it recently.

So where did I say 40 year olds? Making up things again I see. Those close to dying are not normally 40.

Family home for spouse yes.

School teacher? You need to try harder.

Im not a school teacher...

He was in SC in 2017 as well.

Again, it’s not the dead who benefit from inheritance.