Just re-read that to yourself with reference to my post to see that I dont think you know what you are argueing about
David Blunkett wants a death tax.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Just re-read that to yourself with reference to my post to see that I dont think you know what you are argueing about
Regardless of whtehr they've 'earned' it or not the fact that he wants it to go to his children means he is being punished if his desire is not being fulfilled. He'd die much happier know that his hard work is making his children's lives easier which is his reward for working hard.
Not at all I understood perfectly well.
The only thing they are worried about in your comment is self preservation.
The poor in this country do not have very little, for the vast majority of what is classed as poor in the day and aged, bety few in this country experience poverty.
There's so many issues with your opinion. Your blinded by it.
The issue is not a growing gap, or rich people.
The biggest issues are caused by law. Biggest one is planning permission. Meaning land is hugely expensive then house are expensive to build as well.
Lowering the welfare of the poor, non of that has anything to do with wealth, but the law artificially increasing prices.
People love someone to hate, shame it's nearly always targeted at the wrong people. And even when the system is tried to improve then the "middle" class ay not in my back yard.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,668
- Location
- La France
On the contrary, if my offspring get screwed over, I consider that I'm being screwed over by not being allowed to pass on a legacy to them.
A legacy that's been taxed umpteen times over already before any inheritance tax is applied.
A legacy that's been taxed umpteen times over already before any inheritance tax is applied.
Which has nothing to do with poverty, wealth gap or the rich.
It has very much to do with mortgage, thanks to building regulations etc. Something that can easily be changed without just taxing those better off than you.
Doesn't make a difference if someone's offspring has contributed to that wealth or not, its the parents decision to pass on their hard earned money and assets.
The problem at the moment is the death tax is levied on the entire estate, not the person inheriting, I would like there to be an actual inheritance tax and not the current death tax. If someone has 4 children then each child would only get 80k before the death tax which is very different to the headline.
The second issue is the threshold hasn't caught up with inflation or rising house prices.
IMO, don't tax the dead but tax the inheritors and set the threshold at 500k each. An alternative would be a multi level taxation so again tax is on the inheritor not the dead person, from 200k there is a 5% tax from 500k a 10% and from 1m a 15% etc.
I never understood why people dieting is a reason to tax them. People gaining capital in the other hand is.
In a successful family, the whole family contributes and makes sacrifices in return for the outcome.
My wife doesn't work full time anymore to allow me to concentrate on my career that is more financially lucrative.
My Daughter doesn't get to spend a great deal of time with me during the week (again this used to be much worse so I did something about it and moved jobs)
We all as a family have to live in our financial constraints if we want to own our own home and invest for the family's future and ultimately what will be left to my daughter
It is ludicrous to say that they contributed nothing. The contributed a damn sight more than some faceless needy that I don't know and again, it is my wish that they benefit from my hard work
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You wouldn't be distributing your whole estate just a percentage of it. The same way that you pay NI towards the NHS whether you use it or not. That's how the tax system works.
You don't get to say how much you pay just because you think you've payed in more than you've used.
As for children, well there is a shortage. We need more to grow up and work to pay into the system because at the moment the population is skewed towards the elderly.
Claimed nothing from the state? Never used roads, or the NHS or any other public service?
Anyway, that's by the by. You could fall on hard times at any time, even needing social care. It is that social care bill that this tax should go towards
Also; see above about the tax system. Some people pay more than they use, others less. My substantial NI contributions wouldn't even come close to covering my NHS bill over the decades for example.
It makes a difference if we want to have a society where rewards are based on the hard work and skill which an individual possesses. Where there is a clear reward for anyone to try to better themselves, without being priced out or out-competed by those with structural advantages given to them through which they had no control.
Such a society sound like a free-market utopia to me, rather than a socialist nightmare as many seem to fear.
Good post. When I was young I hardly saw my dad. His job paid well and with that meant a lot of travelling... but that has lead to a nice life for all of us.
Again, no matter how much more you take from the rich, the poor are still going to be poor and the lazy are still going to be lazy and everyone will still have the same house.
Lets take all of Warren Buffetts money off him. Let's spread it out evenly amoungst everyone. Now everyone is £10 better off. Sweet. All the poors problems are solved.
Last edited:
I get what you mean completely but its the parents decision, their final wish if you want to put it that way to leave all they have to their children regardless if the children have worked for it or earned it. As someone mentioned above who are you(not directed, just sounds better) to justify what "earning it" means? Daughters who don't see their fathers because they are working crazy hours? Mothers who maybe want to work but cant due to the children or possibly their partner has a more lucrative career or how about a life time of love and support? That alone justifies the "need" people have to pass on their assets to their children.
If I was a parent I would want to leave everything to my child because they are my life whereas some potential benefit system abuser who is now claiming more off the tax payer is not.
You know that your taxes don't just go to people on benefits, right? Quite a small % of it ends up there.
The NHS is the biggest beneficiary, but then you've got the military, your transport infrastructure, etc, etc.
But I see the Tory's goal of painting the poor as a drain on society is doing rather well.
Actually people on benefits are a drain on society, that's a fact, they contribute nothing so they certainly don't help the economy in any way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
As a parent I can say that time with my son is more important that making sure he has a great nest egg but I hardly see him. I'm working towards a nice inheritance for him now he has left home but family life is more important that work. You won't get that time back.
As for your second point, I take it you are assuming that the 'Death Tax' would just go straight to "scroungers" and into the overall tax pot that helps more people that need it than the tiny percentage of benefit cheats.
Divide and conquer at its finest. Seemingly working quite well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Plenty of people on working benefits aren't net contributors. You're point is?
Or the disabled, or some elderly...
Last time I looked you don't "claim" to use the roads the roads...
I've paid income tax and NI all my working life along with council tax, VAT, Vehicle excise duty and the other assorted taxes we all have to contribute. I've not claimed anything in terms of benefits as I suspect you very well knew...
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
They contribute nothing financially, money is not the only way to contribute to society.
Let's also not forget that many of the people benefits will have contributed earlier in life, specifically those with acquire disabilities or the elderly. Let's also, also not forgot that anybody on benefits through a social care need is likely not on benefits through choice.
It's okay, I'll add context to your sweeping statements so you don't have to waste the time.
No, the ones who inherit don't pay the tax. The tax is placed on the assets before distribution. I.e. The tax is paid from the assets of the person that died. Inheritance tax is already a death tax, except it's renamed inheritance because "Death Tax", although more accurate, sounds worse.
If it were actually an inheritance tax the assets would be distributed to each inheritor and tax would be paid individually on what each inherited, which is a whole different ball game...
The article however asks to be talking about a "social care" tax that is Only paid once the person dies. Seems reasonable, as long as it isn't a percentage, rather a capped amount up to the amount spent on their care in old age (which I thought already happened).
The idea of distributing it up north does seem like a political statement though. Yes, houses are worth more down south, that means those living down south also have to pay more for a house. For the same amount of money up north you could potentially buy a house, down south it may not get you enough for a deposit...
Exactly - it's funny to see people try to claim the moral high ground by somehow trying to paint our children as some sort of lucky ner do wells striking it lucky getting money for free with no justification and then in the next breath propose I give my familes hard earned money to some random person who has absolutely no claim or contribution to its generation in the first place at all.
When I want to pass my families money to my children it's greed, when people think it might benefit them or they might be unaffected its social responsibility. pfft...
Last edited: