'Rich Privilege'

[Glaucus]

It wasn't serious and I plucked the 100 million figure from elon musk since it's roughly his total investment in tesla and space x if I remember right. (although that was obviously in dollars and a lot more than 100 million of them)
You have to allow people the opportunity to achieve great things that will benefit mankind.

elon musk types aren't the problem it's the ones that are never going to put the money to any use and it will never benefit anyone.

Even these people aren't a problem, they don't take the money out and hide it under their bed. It all goes into investments or banks which helps everyone out.

I suspect it was more. He put an initial 100m into spaceX then when the first to F1 failed to reach orbit he put a second lot of moneys in.

There's plenty f issue, but none really are the rich.
Many are made due to law.

 

[dowie]

How is inheriting your parents wealth classed as "working hard"?

Let children earn thier own wealth.

Quite

If we want a more meritocratic society then taxing estates upon death and clamping down on trust funds etcetc is required. If we can bring in more revenue from assets transfers/unearned wealth then all the better. Much better to tax inheritance more than to say increase the top rate of income tax - one potentially stifles productivity the other helps prevent assets from being pooled by a small portion of society for generations (granted there is already a big big gap in what people own at the moment - this would be worse without inheritance tax). Hard work and success should be the key to getting rich not accidents of birth.

 

[drakioned]

I posted this on the other thread, but relevant here as an example of what I think is wrong with our current system.

If we had:
Person A from a poor background who does everything right and land themselves a £150k+ job, and
Person B from a rich family, their parents gifted them a half million house, and a slightly cheaper one to let out, and did nothing all day.

Person A would pay a lot more taxes than person B, despite B probably being richer than A their whole life. That can't be exactly inspiring...

 

[Glaucus]

I posted this on the other thread, but relevant here as an example of what I think is wrong with our current system.

And the amount if people who can afford to do this is very few and isn't worth worrying about.

You're talking over 800k just in houses to one child, let alone multiple children, tax etc.

If you see this as an issue you have issues. Someone will always be better off than you. Life isn't fair and never will be. Get over it.

 

[cheesyboy]

And the amount if people who can afford to do this is very few and isn't worth worrying about.

You're talking over 800k just in houses to one child, let alone multiple children, tax etc.

If you see this as an issue you have issues. Someone will always be better off than you. Life isn't fair and never will be. Get over it.

But why set up the tax system to allow the unfairness to go unchecked?

It's a bit defeatist, surely?

 

[Glaucus]

But why set up the tax system to allow the unfairness to go unchecked?

It's a bit defeatist, surely?

Not at all. It's only defeatist if you have this silly mind set.
The issue and unfairness is not that people are better off than you. The unfairness is, some parents are arse holes. That building regulations. Push up prices of houses and don't allow people have a right to a roof over their heads.
Etc etc.

Rest of Europe you have the right to live on land you own for example. Something the ul should fall in line with. It's only mobile housing but that's a great start. Then you don't have to be debated upto the eye balls, or paying 80% off your wage in rent. Which would then also bring rent down.

America has had an explosion of tiny house movement, where people effectively cut their biggest bill to zero.

 

[dod]

How is inheriting your parents wealth classed as "working hard"?

Let children earn thier own wealth.

Your daughter can earn her own money.

Let her work hard like you have, rather than giving her a silver spoon she has no real appreciation of.

You seem to have had a change of heart.

Spoiler

I consider it cruel and heartless to even contemplate depriving someone of something they have inherited (I say the same about inheritance tax). It isn't the Royals fault they are Royal and to be fair they do work damn hard and make the most of it (and of course why not enjoy the privileges that co-exist with that hard work) - who here will be working until they are 85 (ok, maybe all of us looking at the way pensions are going)?

Oh, and reading Dolph's post above - I agree with it in it's entirety for justification of keeping the current Monarchy.

I'm a royalist through and through (which might suprise a great many on these forums) but not for simply "royalty for royalties sake".

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=19019221&postcount=109

 

[robgmun]

A rant off the back of some of the comments in this thread: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18653649.

I live in greater London. I have a decent job, a flat with a mortgage on it, a car and a big TV. Am I rich? No. Am I privileged? No!

My dad grew up in a Commonwealth county where the family home was a tin shack. Only the boys went to school. He came to the UK in the 70s to study engineering but soon after he arrived his dad died so he had to find more money quickly to support his younger brothers and sisters so he retrained in the NHS. My mum grew up on an council estate in Kent and left school as young as was allowed with no qualifications to speak of.

When I was born they both worked every hour in the day doing several jobs to pay for me. They taught me about working hard and studying and I went through school, got decent grades and then a decent degree and a fairly well paying job.

I'm probably biased but my family is a great example of what you can accomplish if you actually put the effort in. It's only thanks to my parents that I had the home-life to concentrate on school, get decent grades and to be honest, help fund my mortgage. My kids will be better off because of what my parents did and what I am doing.

So why the bloody hell does the '99%' and the Labour government feel that I should be penalised for working hard? Why do they give off the impression that people who have enough money to pay taxes and inherit parental homes are super rich bankers that need to be punished with more taxes?

Rant over.

Your story sounds very similar to mine, unfortunately there's a very small section of this forums that are out-right communist in there thinking. "Rich = Evil ******* that stole money off the backs of the poor" in their eyes. despite being a minority here they don't half make a lot of noise.

 

[soundb0y]

Im guessing inheritance/income/whatever tax pales into insignificance compared to the tax missed out on my corporations/big business abusing legal loopholes that the government refuse to do anything about.

Does anyone have any stats?

To me it seems like they would rather the rich blame the poor, and the poor blame the rich rather than actually talking about or DOING ANYTHING about the huge white elephant in the room.

 

[drakioned]

Not at all. It's only defeatist if you have this silly mind set.
The issue and unfairness is not that people are better off than you. The unfairness is, some parents are arse holes. That building regulations. Push up prices of houses and don't allow people have a right to a roof over their heads.
Etc etc.

Rest of Europe you have the right to live on land you own for example. Something the ul should fall in line with. It's only mobile housing but that's a great start. Then you don't have to be debated upto the eye balls, or paying 80% off your wage in rent. Which would then also bring rent down.

America has had an explosion of tiny house movement, where people effectively cut their biggest bill to zero.

The unfairness isn't that person B is richer than person A, sure, there's going to be people richer than you. The problem is that the people who are richer than you shouldn't pay less tax.

 

[Xordium]

So why the bloody hell does the '99%' and the Labour government feel that I should be penalised for working hard? Why do they give off the impression that people who have enough money to pay taxes and inherit parental homes are super rich bankers that need to be punished with more taxes?

Because they believe it will provide the necessary resources to provide for families like yours that came into the country and were net takers for many years and had money spent on them so they could raise themselves to net givers.

 

[cheesyboy]

Not at all. It's only defeatist if you have this silly mind set.
The issue and unfairness is not that people are better off than you. The unfairness is, some parents are arse holes. That building regulations. Push up prices of houses and don't allow people have a right to a roof over their heads.
Etc etc.

Rest of Europe you have the right to live on land you own for example. Something the ul should fall in line with. It's only mobile housing but that's a great start. Then you don't have to be debated upto the eye balls, or paying 80% off your wage in rent. Which would then also bring rent down.

America has had an explosion of tiny house movement, where people effectively cut their biggest bill to zero.

You're right that it's not unfair that some are better off than others. Talent and hard work should be rewarded.

The unfairness is the difference in obstacles faced and the opportunities available. People from poor backgrounds have a much more difficult path to tread, than someone from a wealthier background with the same talent and drive.

The causes of that indeed incorporate things like living costs* - the wealthy can assist their offspring with these hurdles, where the poor cannot. But that's not the only issue.

* (You can work around this with housing plans, but suggestions like yours have other social externalities - such as potential for uncontrolled development - and have to face down opposition, usually (coincidentally) from the same people who benefit from the current wealth closed-shop.)

 

[Glaucus]

The unfairness isn't that person B is richer than person A, sure, there's going to be people richer than you. The problem is that the people who are richer than you shouldn't pay less tax.

They don't.

You've been nicely brainwashed by the media, there's a few very rich people who pay a lower percentage. that is not the norm most people you consider to be rich, are payee just like us and can't not pay less.
And there's plenty of self employed/contractors who pay less tax percentage than payee people as well.

 

[mattyg]

No-one is trying to punish you for being successful. All mainstream parties agree on the principle that 'those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden'. That means those with the most income paying the most tax.

Someone earning £150,000 still earns significantly more than someone earning £75,000 after tax. Be thankful for what you have, rather than resentful for what you don't. You might not consider yourself to be rich. Many others would.

But they do pay more tax.

My issue with the system is why should I pay a higher %.
100k@20% I'll still pay into the system twice as much as the guy earning 50k.
Why should I pay in MORE than my FAIR share.

 

[drakioned]

Im guessing inheritance/income/whatever tax pales into insignificance compared to the tax missed out on my corporations/big business abusing legal loopholes that the government refuse to do anything about.

Does anyone have any stats?

To me it seems like they would rather the rich blame the poor, and the poor blame the rich rather than actually talking about or DOING ANYTHING about the huge white elephant in the room.

It's a bit of a false white elephant. Any tax dodged by a company would either end up in somebody's salary or somebody's dividend sooner or later, and probably a rich somebody.

 

[Glaucus]

You're right that it's not unfair that some are better off than others. Talent and hard work should be rewarded.

The unfairness is the difference in obstacles faced and the opportunities available. People from poor backgrounds have a much more difficult path to tread, than someone from a wealthier background with the same talent and drive.

The causes of that indeed incorporate things like living costs* - the wealthy can assist their offspring with these hurdles, where the poor cannot. But that's not the only issue.

* (You can work around this with housing plans, but suggestions like yours have other social externalities - such as potential for uncontrolled development - and have to face down opposition, usually (coincidentally) from the same people who benefit from the current wealth closed-shop.)

And how does screwing over the wealthy help these kids have more optunitities?
It doesn't at all.

Education is already free. Further education is already advisable to everyone.
The biggest issue, is parenting and that is much harder to solve, as kids are around parents much mire than other influences.

And no in no way does it lead to uncontrolled deployment. That would require, removing all planning permission and restrictions.

 

[Mynight]

It's a bit of a false white elephant. Any tax dodged by a company would either end up in somebody's salary or somebody's dividend sooner or later, and probably a rich somebody.

Company tax is on profits so employee salaries will lower the profits and tax burden not get paid by the saved tax. Dividends are also tax free up to a certain amount(I can't remember atm) so only tax we'll get back is when they spend it. Losing 10% of what should have been taxed in the first place.

 

[Clipsey]

Surely the question shouldn't be directed at 'who earns more' etc but at the government simply ****ing away millions upon millions of pounds down the drain.

 

[mattyg]

Company tax is on profits so employee salaries will lower the profits and tax burden not get paid by the saved tax. Dividends are also tax free up to a certain amount(I can't remember atm) so only tax we'll get back is when they spend it. Losing 10% of what should have been taxed in the first place.

Dividends have already had the Tax paid on them (corporation tax). Tax will be due if your are a higher rate tax payer.

Companies pay corporation tax on profits. Dividends are paid from the profits that have already been taxed

 

[Glaucus]

Surely the question shouldn't be directed at 'who earns more' etc but at the government simply ****ing away millions upon millions of pounds down the drain.

And more importantly how do you solve the issues, that question leads to sensible policy, not a populist vote of punishing the rich. which ultimately would just increase tax revenue, and not actually achieve anything.