Gordo's insidius reach (oh, did I spell that right?:)

[expat]

Inheritance and meritocracy are diametrically opposed. You cannot have both.

The fuss is perhaps unnecessary. If the rich sprogs are no good themselves, their family's money will soon be in other hands anyway. Profligate sons have redistributed more fortunes than socialism ever has.

[Mailman]

I understand the point. I'm just arguing that children (assuming they're adults anyway) are seperate legal entities and are as such no more or less entitled than anyone else to money left after death.

What a load of codswollop!

Your socialist rantings are a joke V, to say a complete stranger has just as much right to your mothers assets on her death is just about one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard on these forums!

I'm really not a raving socialist, but I think given the choice between taxing the living and taxing the dead, taxing the dead seems like a good option.

The problem is, you arent taxing the dead...you ARE taxing the living by getting a cut of the assets they have just inhereted (and most likely at some stage during their lives helped to create).

We care about the amount of tax we pay as it hurts us day to day, but once you're dead you don't care about tax.

Of course the dead dont complain...because the tax is being paid by their living survivors.

yet you all seem to think spoilt rich brats should get a huge hand out tax free when Daddy pops his clogs, without ever having done anything to earn it.

Ahhhhhhh...I was wondering when we would see the real reason for why you want to tax the hell out of people...simple green envy!

I say, treat everybody as individuals, and reward individual success (not punish as they seem to be doing now).

But its ok to punish them because they might be a bit better off then you? BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Look...more and more "normal" people are being stung by IHT simply because the threshold hasnt moved in line with inflation.

Of course if I had children or rich parents I might have a different opinion.

Goes without saying really. BUT...have you ever wondered why rich people stay rich? I guess its a combination of hardwork and have creative accountants

Then again, if the tax system wasnt so stacked against the rich and the very poor and the middle classes we might actually have more people paying their fair share of tax, after all its only fair!

You know Im all for socialism...just as long as it doesnt affect me negatively in any way!

Mailman

[NoddY]

Look...more and more "normal" people are being stung by IHT simply because the threshold hasnt moved in line with inflation.

You mean the artificial house price bubble NOT inflation.

Goes without saying really. BUT...have you ever wondered why rich people stay rich? I guess its a combination of hardwork and have creative accountants

Hard work? You haven't read my earlier post. The rich have accumulated assets over several generations. It's nothing to do with WORK, they have no need to sell their labour at all (unlike you and I).

They don't need creative accountants either. During the industrial revolution our laws where formulated with intention of protecting assets (especially land), the result being the entire political-legal system centred around the primacy of assets protected by the State using force. As recently as March 8 this was tested (the primacy of asset protection vs. Convention on Human Rights)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4784640.stm

You know Im all for socialism...just as long as it doesnt affect me negatively in any way!

Mailman

This is nothing to do with socialism. It's about retaining incentive. Imagine a world where the value of work is diminishing, where your ability to convert your labour into assets becomes increasingly difficult; and for two reasons:

1. the supply of assets continues to diminish (you fight for piece of a smaller pie)
2. the value of your work is diminished (you can only afford a smaller slice of a smaller pie).

[DodgyAgent]

You mean the artificial house price bubble NOT inflation.



Hard work? You haven't read my earlier post. The rich have accumulated assets over several generations. It's nothing to do with WORK, they have no need to sell their labour at all (unlike you and I).

They don't need creative accountants either. During the industrial revolution our laws where formulated with intention of protecting assets (especially land), the result being the entire political-legal system centred around the primacy of assets protected by the State using force. As recently as March 8 this was tested (the primacy of asset protection vs. Convention on Human Rights)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4784640.stm




This is nothing to do with socialism. It's about retaining incentive. Imagine a world where the value of work is diminishing, where your ability to convert your labour into assets becomes increasingly difficult; and for two reasons:

1. the supply of assets continues to diminish (you fight for piece of a smaller pie)
2. the value of your work is diminished (you can only afford a smaller slice of a smaller pie).

So people like Richard Branson and Alan Sugar had their fortunes handed down to them?
You dont really seem to have much of a grasp of economics Noddy. I may be misunderstanding you here, but you seem to think that work for its own sake should be rewarded no matter what, even if there is no market demand for the work??

[expat]

Originally Posted by Mailman
Look...more and more "normal" people are being stung by IHT simply because the threshold hasnt moved in line with inflation.

You mean the artificial house price bubble NOT inflation.

Indeed. Perhaps IHT will curb some of this irrational exuberance and return the housing market to sanity (where a "healthy housing market" is one where house prices do not rise fast)

[NoddY]

So people like Richard Branson and Alan Sugar had their fortunes handed down to them?
You dont really seem to have much of a grasp of economics Noddy. I may be misunderstanding you here, but you seem to think that work for its own sake should be rewarded no matter what, even if there is no market demand for the work??

The fact that you can count people like Branson and Sugar on one hand for every generation suggests they are the exception rather than the rule. Those whose riches border on obscenity are likely to keep a low profile (50% of the land in England is not registered at the Land Registry).

As for work that has no demand - you simply won't get paid. As for producing work and offering services that service a demand then you are likely to rise above your peers BUT you are still less likely to convert them into assets; simply because the supply of assets diminishes over time.

The answer (for the ordinary person) then lies in the generation of new types of assets. Instead of going out to work and then using money to purchase assets, you should create assets in the first place - essentially generating intellectual property. However the problem arises when we are effectively punishing those such as doctors and teachers who are unable to create assets for themselves; but perversely society needs them to function nevertheless.

[threaded]

Is this that same Stowe educated Richard Branson rags to riches bulltulip? Yeah, lots of working class kids get the chance to go to Stowe don't they.

[TwoWolves]

This argument comes up regularly but it never seems to go anywhere. The reasons for this is that we all labour under false assumptions that we are fed from the cradle. Once you challenge these the arguments take on new meaning.

It exacerbates environmental destruction, fuels house price inflation, reduces middle-class birth-rates, reduces social mobility and keeps the rich - well, rich.

Look at history; when substantial death taxes were introduced the cycle started. Increased economic growth, pressure on resources, increase in working classes/serfs - leads to war. Its all part of the "great con", along with usury.

[Mustang]

Unbelievable

Why doesn't Gordon B suggest that when our parents die, we are FORCED to sell their houses, cars, jewellry, clothes and all other remaining assets and then be FORCED to hand all the cash raised over to the Government. After all, what difference does it make as I haven't paid for or earnt any of them.

At some point, he HAS to realise that he cant just keep tapping the public for more money to fund the Governments inability to restructure and reorganise the public sector. Why were consultants allowed to negotiate their own salaries, why was the full cost of "Agenda for Change" not planned for?

Why is England such a soft touch for people coming in? Why, why, why??!!!

Will the last person out of the UK turn out the light!! Assuming the immigrants dont want it left on of course or those left can afford to pay the electricty bill!!


Phew........Need to go and lie down now...!!

[NoddY]

.. Its all part of the "great con", along with usury.

Good God man, you can't leave us in the air hanging! What's this great con! Tell us!