Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Lefties dreaming up another "inheritance" tax"
An absurd suggestion when the problem we have currently is insufficient saving. When people are not saving enough to take them through retirement or other periods with no income. Of course if people do not save then they are more reliant upon the government in times of need and are therefore more likely to vote for those who will continue to keep them. That and it is an affirmation that in a socialist utopia the money you make either by the sweat of your brow or by investment is not yours but the government's to (mis)spend as they see fit.
Another way to keep lifetime savings under 80k is to get divorced.
This disaster of a government are borrowing and spending so much that they will grab every pound they can from honest, hard working taxpayers, just so that they can pass the money to the scroungers and idle!!
An absurd suggestion when the problem we have currently is insufficient saving. When people are not saving enough to take them through retirement or other periods with no income. Of course if people do not save then they are more reliant upon the government in times of need and are therefore more likely to vote for those who will continue to keep them. That and it is an affirmation that in a socialist utopia the money you make either by the sweat of your brow or by investment is not yours but the government's to (mis)spend as they see fit.
Some of us (the elderly) can remember when you weren't allowed to take more than £50 out of the country... that was abolished by Maggie when she came to power in 1979.
Though one might observe that 50 uniflated quidlets were more like £500 these days...
I do remember that. I am no fan of Thatcher, but I will say that the early Thatcher govt did do away with some long-standing illiberal restrictions, that I'm happy to say have not returned. Like the idea that "your" money belonged in the country and you needed permission to spend it somewhere else (Customs obviously still feel the same way about cross-border shopping).
She also struck out the ban on individuals holding gold, and on walkie-talkies.
All of them indicative of a government mind-set that everything was theirs to run, rather than belonging to the people, subject only to necessary regulation. I do see this mind-set on the rise again, and I'm afraid that I fail to see any sign of a more liberal alternative to the current lot. Cameron's Tories will only accidentally make fewer regulations, just because they have fewer things that they want to achieve (no, that is not Conservatism); and the LibDems have the worst combination of young liberal intefering firebrands (of all ages) and social democrat social engineers.
You will remember that their view is that "exit taxes must be accepted as a necessary move to protect public revenue". Don't even think of moving "your" money out of our tax area. Comrade.
So the movement of power to Asia will be hastened then?
by savings do they just mean cash in the bank? What about bank accounts overseas?
You will remember that their view is that "exit taxes must be accepted as a necessary move to protect public revenue". Don't even think of moving "your" money out of our tax area. Comrade.
Well if this is true then surely the only "fair" inheritance tax is one levied at 100% on all estates worth more than £0?
No, no, of course not. That would be quite wrong. It would impact that large slice of lower-savings people that we might, for want of a better phrase, call "labour voters".
Leave a comment: