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

[DimPrawn]

rapists

[Fungus]

rapists

Maybe he meant rappers?

[xoggoth]

Same thing.

[vista]

Socialist Scum

Personally I think we should do away with inheritance. Give the whole lot to the government: if it reduces the tax burden that we all share than that's a plus, and if it puts an end to spoilt rich kids getting all of Daddy's money despite them never doing a day's work in their life, then that's a double plus.

Lives here

Bet you're fat and ugly as F V ck as well.

[VectraMan]

Vectra, what do you think will happen when such stupid law is put into practice? At best people simply wont save money so they will be burden on the state to support them when they retire, at worse people will put money abroad and their kids will just leave this country for 6 months to get all the money tax free.

Or they spend the money, benefiting the economy, and their children have to work hard to build their own lives, also benefiting the economy.

I agree that it probably wouldn't work in practice. I just think as a principle, why is somebody entitled to somebody else's money and property? When you're dead, your ownership of property or money is effectively void. And if taxing the dead at 100% means less tax on the living, I say yaay!

[expat]

We get taxed on our earnings, taxed on what we manage to save from what we are allowed to keep, then taxed on that when we snuff it. How many times are we supposed to be taxed on the same money??

What makes you think there should be a limit on number of times money attracts tax? Every time a transaction takes place, it is potentially taxable.

I am not exactly rich but at current levels will get hit for a lot of IT.

Then you are exacly rich.

I want it to go to my sons.

Want what you like. When you've paid your taxes, it's not your money any more.

[AtW]

Or they spend the money, benefiting the economy, and their children have to work hard to build their own lives, also benefiting the economy.

Do you think you will get acceptable retirement lifestyle at the state pension (which won't be there in 20 years anyway) of less than 100 quid per week?

Even assuming you will have paid off your house, the council tax bill alone will eat 25% of the pension - and you will have choice to gamble saving few quid over winter with risk to die from cold, is this the kind of retirement that appeals to you?

IMO, people who earned money and paid taxes should do with their money anything they want - these money ain't yours, not Gordons, not nobodys.

After certain level of income it makes sense to just pay few smart people to put money into offshore and just leave this country for a year to get cash tax free.

[OwlHoot]

Or they spend the money, benefiting the economy, and their children have to work hard to build their own lives, also benefiting the economy.

I agree that it probably wouldn't work in practice. I just think as a principle, why is somebody entitled to somebody else's money and property? When you're dead, your ownership of property or money is effectively void. And if taxing the dead at 100% means less tax on the living, I say yaay!

A few rich people can benefit the economy a lot more than if their wealth is diluted to nothing among a horde of paupers.

[VectraMan]

Do you think you will get acceptable retirement lifestyle at the state pension (which won't be there in 20 years anyway) of less than 100 quid per week?

Don't see what that's got to do with anything. We were talking about inheritance which means you must have some money when you retire.

IMO, people who earned money and paid taxes should do with their money anything they want - these money ain't yours, not Gordons, not nobodys.

Agree completely. I never suggested anything different. But when somebody is dead all bets are off, the concept of ownership doesn't apply, so that money has to go somewhere so why not into public funds?

[Fungus]

Don't see what that's got to do with anything. We were talking about inheritance which means you must have some money when you retire.



Agree completely. I never suggested anything different. But when somebody is dead all bets are off, the concept of ownership doesn't apply, so that money has to go somewhere so why not into public funds?

Typical of this government to punish hard work. If you spend your life grafting, and use intelligence to invest wisely, why should the state benefit? Morality suggests that your next of kin should be the ones that benefit. Why should my money go to all and sundry including scruffy spend it when you've got it yobs.

It's a case of bringing us all down to the lowest common denominator. Comments by Vectraman sound like the old class warrier envy nonsense.