The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (116 Viewers)

[Astute]

You realise Watson was a Brownite, right?

Was he the deputy leader?

Could he see the same disaster happening again?

Your guess is as good as mine. The difference is that I don't defend anyone.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Was he the deputy leader?

Could he see the same disaster happening again?

Your guess is as good as mine. The difference is that I don't defend anyone.

You’re barely coherent and when you are spend your time parroting Daily Express headlines.
What do you want? What’s your view on how to run an economy and which one is “real” Labour? Answer that and maybe we can have a sensible discussion.

 

[Astute]

Im not a school teacher...

He was in SC in 2017 as well.

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

You talk down to people like you are one.

Come on then. Show me where I said the dead benefit.

 

[Astute]

You’re barely coherent and when you are spend your time parroting Daily Express headlines

So you read the Express? I don't so wouldn't have a clue what the headlines are. But I do know that Labour is supposed to look after the man on the street and not cut a tax benefit to him by about 75%. But you are happy with it.

 

[shmmeee]

You talk down to people like you are one.

Come on then. Show me where I said the dead benefit.

Show me where i said under 40s do

 

[shmmeee]

So you read the Express? I don't so wouldn't have a clue what the headlines are. But I do know that Labour is supposed to look after the man on the street and not cut a tax benefit to him by about 75%. But you are happy with it.

you are ridiculous

 

[clint van damme]

Empty promises.... everyone's tax will go up eventually

Happy for mine to go up if it prevents one more death from austerity.
130 thousand deaths is a fucking scandal and it's shameful for a nation as rich as ours.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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

Did you even fucking read it!

It is not inherited by the state - it is managed on behalf of the beneficiaries in the will who can then pass that onto their children etc. Same as now.

Only difference is they have slower access to it to prevent them a. having power and influence they haven't earned and b. to prevent it being wasted by a fucking idiot at the expense of the others. It's basically a pension.

I said the property would be part of that and could either be sold or the upkeep costs taken from the estate.

A guardian of an orphaned child would be able to draw down that child's share each year for their upkeep. If they can't keep a small child on a tax-free national average wage then the fucker shouldn't be their guardian!

 

[Astute]

Show me where i said under 40s do

Twisting my words again I see.

You said I said it. I don't make up bullshit. That is your job.

 

[Grendel]

Did you even fucking read it!

It is not inherited by the state - it is managed on behalf of the beneficiaries in the will who can then pass that onto their children etc. Same as now.

Only difference is they have slower access to it to prevent them a. having power and influence they haven't earned and b. to prevent it being wasted by a fucking idiot at the expense of the others. It's basically a pension.

I said the property would be part of that and could either be sold or the upkeep costs taken from the estate.

A guardian of an orphaned child would be able to draw down that child's share each year for their upkeep. If they can't keep a small child on a tax-free national average wage then the fucker shouldn't be their guardian!

You are describing a discretionary trust

 

[Astute]

you are ridiculous

Me? Ran out of excuses for new new Labour?

 

[shmmeee]

Twisting my words again I see.

You said I said it. I don't make up bullshit. That is your job.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You are describing a discretionary trust

Difference is that the terms are steadfast and set in law. At the moment they can have unlimited access as it is trustees discretion. The point is to reduce the amount of power and influence an individual can have due to inherited wealth. Discretionary trusts don't guarantee that.

 

[Astute]

Happy for mine to go up if it prevents one more death from austerity.
130 thousand deaths is a fucking scandal and it's shameful for a nation as rich as ours.

I have always said I am happy to pay more. And I pay a lot already.

But let's not kid ourselves. I don't want our futures to be hit as bad as last time. Tax my income not my savings. Leave my pension alone. Enough damage was done last time.

 

[Astute]

Exactly. Ever thought of becoming McDonnell 's adviser? Then blag the UK on how good it is?

 

[shmmeee]

I have always said I am happy to pay more. And I pay a lot already.

But let's not kid ourselves. I don't want our futures to be hit as bad as last time. Tax my income not my savings. Leave my pension alone. Enough damage was done last time.

Genius. Under your plans Jeff Bezos would pay less tax than my mate on £100k

 

[Astute]

Genius. Under your plans Jeff Bezos would pay less tax than my mate on £100k

And what plans are these of mine you have made up this time?

 

[Grendel]

Difference is that the terms are steadfast and set in law. At the moment they can have unlimited access as it is trustees discretion. The point is to reduce the amount of power and influence an individual can have due to inherited wealth. Discretionary trusts don't guarantee that.

so the state are the trustees?

 

[shmmeee]

And what plans are these of mine you have made up this time?

Only taxing income. Bezos’ salary is $81k.

And before you accuse me of twisting your words:

Tax my income not my savings.

Unless you want your own personal tax code of course. In which case it’s an even more mental plan.

Edit: look, why do you think most people join the Labour Party? Do you think they secretly want to destroy the working man? Politicians of all stripes make mistakes, they’re human. What’s important is the direction of travel and on average, in most areas, more people do well under Labour than Conservatives. That’s why I believe and I have strong evidence behind it IMO. Are Labour perfect? Not at all, their activists are often young and naive and they’ve lost their link to the average working person since the decline of the unions. Thanks to Blair most of the “talent” are basically slightly nicer Lib Dems so we’ve got to make do until proper left wing politicians who aren’t Richard Fucking Burgon come through. But are they better than the omnishambles of narcissists and arseholes that comprise the post Brexit Tory party? You’re damn right they are.

 

[Astute]

Only taxing income. Bezos’ salary is $81k

So pensions should be hit again because someone dodges tax?

How about hitting tax dodgers first?

How are we supposed to save for the future when the goalposts keep getting moved? You need to think about what you are saying. I have spent nearly 30 years putting every spare penny away. Our newest car is now 11 years old. No fancy holidays. I have had 2 weekends away with the wife without children in all the years we have been together. It has been tough at times. But it has all been for our futures. It is happening when I am 55. If it gets hit again I might as well have had a good time and been a burden on the state when I am old.

 

[SBAndy]

So pensions should be hit again because someone dodges tax?

How about hitting tax dodgers first?

How are we supposed to save for the future when the goalposts keep getting moved? You need to think about what you are saying. I have spent nearly 30 years putting every spare penny away. Our newest car is now 11 years old. No fancy holidays. I have had 2 weekends away with the wife without children in all the years we have been together. It has been tough at times. But it has all been for our futures. It is happening when I am 55. If it gets hit again I might as well have had a good time and been a burden on the state when I am old.

Why have you diverted from inheritance tax to pensions now?

 

[Astute]

Why have you diverted from inheritance tax to pensions now?

As you know it was pensions that got hammered so much last time Labour was in that it ended final salary pensions. That was a tax on the man on the street.

 

[Ian1779]

So pensions should be hit again because someone dodges tax?

How about hitting tax dodgers first?

How are we supposed to save for the future when the goalposts keep getting moved? You need to think about what you are saying. I have spent nearly 30 years putting every spare penny away. Our newest car is now 11 years old. No fancy holidays. I have had 2 weekends away with the wife without children in all the years we have been together. It has been tough at times. But it has all been for our futures. It is happening when I am 55. If it gets hit again I might as well have had a good time and been a burden on the state when I am old.

People that are living on the poverty line, accessing food banks, disabled and vulnerable are a million miles away from having to worry about whether they lose £5/£10K from lowering an inheritance tax threshold. And there are so many people in the former situation than the latter.

that doesn’t mean you don’t necessarily have a point about that particular aspect... but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be in support of the general notion of those that have the means pay a bit more. And if you are it doesn’t seem that way.

Tax evasion is a massive issue - as you have raised. The only party with any kind of coherent ideas about stopping it? The one you keep slating.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

so the state are the trustees?

Nope. The trustees would be whoever was appointed such in the will of the deceased, be it another family member, solicitors, accountants, lawyers - whoever. A trustee could set out their successor should anything happen to them. They would just have to abide by the laws of the land, just as they do now.

If a person died intestate it would be set practice for their assets to be set up in trust and an independent trustee like those mentioned above appointed by the courts. If there were no apparent descendants then attempts would be made to find living relatives. Not really any different from now.

The only thing it does differently is prevent someone who had not earned this wealth from being able to access it all at once and thus have power and influence they have not proved themselves worthy of. Descendants still get provided for but society doesn't get lumbered with some rich idiot calling the shots because someone has given them a shitload of money when they died. Better for society all round.

 

[Astute]

People that are living on the poverty line, accessing food banks, disabled and vulnerable are a million miles away from having to worry about whether they lose £5/£10K from lowering an inheritance tax threshold. And there are so many people in the former situation than the latter.

that doesn’t mean you don’t necessarily have a point about that particular aspect... but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be in support of the general notion of those that have the means pay a bit more. And if you are it doesn’t seem that way.

Tax evasion is a massive issue - as you have raised. The only party with any kind of coherent ideas about stopping it? The one you keep slating.

1, Like I said I am happy to pay more. But not on my pension like last time.

2, The one I keep slating? I slate them all. But when I say anything against Labour I have you and others defending everything. Nobody tries to defend the other parties so there is never a disagreement that lasts all day so it never gets noticed as much.

 

[Grendel]

Nope. The trustees would be whoever was appointed such in the will of the deceased, be it another family member, solicitors, accountants, lawyers - whoever. A trustee could set out their successor should anything happen to them. They would just have to abide by the laws of the land, just as they do now.

If a person died intestate it would be set practice for their assets to be set up in trust and an independent trustee like those mentioned above appointed by the courts. If there were no apparent descendants then attempts would be made to find living relatives. Not really any different from now.

The only thing it does differently is prevent someone who had not earned this wealth from being able to access it all at once and thus have power and influence they have not proved themselves worthy of. Descendants still get provided for but society doesn't get lumbered with some rich idiot calling the shots because someone has given them a shitload of money when they died. Better for society all round.

intestacy rules would actually mean the state would be the trustee so that’s just an odd philosophy and I’m not sure why these focus is on no will estates?

if there was a will and these restrictions applied and the one beneficiary was a child and that child had a brain tumour and a radical surgery which benefited them could cure them but would cost all the money who allows the trustees to release the funds?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

1, Like I said I am happy to pay more. But not on my pension like last time.

2, The one I keep slating? I slate them all. But when I say anything against Labour I have you and others defending everything. Nobody tries to defend the other parties so there is never a disagreement that lasts all day so it never gets noticed as much.

Wrong on both counts but OK

 

[Astute]

Wrong on both counts but OK

Go on then. What is wrong. Explain in nice simple words. Sounds like you are implying that Brown didn't decimate pensions last time again.

Or are you saying that Labour doesn't get defended constantly by the same people all the time?

 

[Grendel]

Go on then. What is wrong. Explain in nice simple words. Sounds like you are implying that Brown didn't decimate pensions last time again.

Labour always decimate pensions

I can with total certainty say that Corbyn would attack the 25% free withdrawal next which means even those on a defined scheme and have a fixed income will have that reduced with a new tax imposition

 

[Astute]

Labour always decimate pensions

I can with total certainty say that Corbyn would attack the 25% free withdrawal next which means even those on a defined scheme and have a fixed income will have that reduced with a new tax imposition

Which is my worry. I am planning to use mine to secure the children we have taken to live in France their future. Am buying them a house each. Want them from under my feet when I retire At least I will be tied to French tax once I live there.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Go on then. What is wrong. Explain in nice simple words. Sounds like you are implying that Brown didn't decimate pensions last time again.

Or are you saying that Labour doesn't get defended constantly by the same people all the time?

You are wrong to say that every criticism of yours against Labour is 'defended by everyone'. You are also wrong that nobody tries to defend the other parties, there's plenty sticking up for the Tories here.

But only G is more stubborn than you when it comes to admitting you got something wrong

 

[skybluetony176]

At least I will be tied to French tax once I live there.

You do know France is one of the most taxed nations in the EU don’t you?

 

[Astute]

You are wrong to say that every criticism of yours against Labour is 'defended by everyone'. You are also wrong that nobody tries to defend the other parties, there's plenty sticking up for the Tories here.

But only G is more stubborn than you when it comes to admitting you got something wrong

Who is defending the Tories?

Shall we make a list of those of you that constantly defend Labour?

Are you going to finally admit that Brown killed off final salary pensions when you just blame my generation for it? Just like you just blame my generation for Bliar going to war on a lie.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

intestacy rules would actually mean the state would be the trustee so that’s just an odd philosophy and I’m not sure why these focus is on no will estates?

if there was a will and these restrictions applied and the one beneficiary was a child and that child had a brain tumour and a radical surgery which benefited them could cure them but would cost all the money who allows the trustees to release the funds?

But as this would be a new method of dealing with inheritance intestacy rules could be changed so that an independent body would be appointed by a court. It wouldn't focus on no-will estates - it would be on all estates. I merely mentioned intestate as it would be a grey area that would need to be accounted for in legislation.

In such unbelievably rare and specific cases such as that an exceptional circumstances claim could be sent through the courts, fast-tracked if necessary if there is an imminent threat to their life.

Before you say that could leave it open to abuse, there is never a perfect piece of legislation and a false claim would be fraud.

 

[skybluetony176]

Who is defending the Tories?

Shall we make a list of those of you that constantly defend Labour?

Are you going to finally admit that Brown killed off final salary pensions when you just blame my generation for it? Just like you just blame my generation for Bliar going to war on a lie.

The Tories have been in government for ten years and haven’t once considered reversing it. Secretly they’re thanking Brown because he had to make what was a difficult decision meaning they’ve dodged the bullet.