Tax - how much of your gross do you pay?

platypus said:
Ah so you mean its taxed twice, rather than double taxation. Ok that's different.

Yes it is taxed twice, but if it was not subject to IHT, then it would be subject to CGT, as per all other assets in law. Which would you prefer? IHT or CGT?
Click to expand...

Neither make sense.
- IHT is a second tax because the income was taxed
- CGT should be applied when the property is sold by the person who inherited it (when it's sold, not when it's inherited)

At the moment I think it'd probably be triple taxed if you sold it - correct me if you know better (never sold an inherited house).
 
billysielu said:
Neither make sense.
- IHT is a second tax because the income was taxed
- CGT should be applied when the property is sold by the person who inherited it (when it's sold, not when it's inherited)
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing that it's a second tax, I was just refuting the term double-taxation, which I don't think you meant.

CGT is applied when an asset is disposed of; eg when passed on. Right or wrong I suppose, but you can't have two applications of a single tax, hence why IHT exists, because you couldn't really say that CGT applies to assets when they are disposed of, except for property when its being passed on after death (Well I suppose you could, but its an over-complication).

At the moment I think it'd probably be triple taxed if you sold it - correct me if you know better (never sold an inherited house).
Click to expand...
Well, you don’t pay any tax (SD/CGT) on a property you inherit it. You might pay IHT (if the deceased’s estate can’t or doesn’t pay it).

But yes if you then go on to sell the house you will pay CGT on top of it, unless its your home (eg you've moved into it).

Now, obviously, IHT was designed to target inherited wealth, which is a large entrencher of inequality. Whether your happy with that inequality or not is by the by, but thats why it exists.
 
Last edited:
Scrap all public funding of everything if you want your house fire put out then you should pay for it praise be to Ayn Rand my spiritual guide in this life
 
Hades said:
So you'd be in favour of scrapping state pensions? Or how would you fund it?
Click to expand...

Yes I'd be in favour of scrapping it. Probably have to phase it out because people are expecting it, but yeah eventually we should remove it.

I'm almost at the point of saying the same goes for the NHS, but not quite there yet.

Edit: Should probably say why... because I don't need the government to do my personal banking for me. I'm quite capable of setting aside money for retirement by myself. This is something the government is doing that it just doesn't need to do at all. Someone will say it's not about me setting aside money for myself, it's about setting it aside for someone else who can't afford to... well, I'm not a charity... I don't want to give money to someone else just because they need it. I earnt it, should be my choice.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
But you aren't taking into account the weighting of money is not the same.

The first £1 you earn means more to you than the £100,000th - as by then all your necessities have been covered and you are now into just using it for luxuries.

So having a flat rate where you are taxed at the same % level on £20,000 to £200,000 is not 'equal' just because the number in front of the % is the same
Click to expand...

Tough luck. Progress further and the fruits of your efforts are yours instead of being taken from you and given to some tramps who have done nothing to earn them and don't deserve them.

Perfectly fair. Effort = reward.
 
billysielu said:
No, just as I shouldn't be paying for someone elses right now.
Click to expand...

Well, in a different way to what you are meaning , you probably shouldn't - since it shouldn't be taken out of current taxation - but a national investment fund created from people's contributions, but that's a different debate. We have to deal with what we have.

You are just being very selfish and self centered with the 'mine mine mine' attitude....you don't think you should be paying the pensions for people who, for example, fought for your freedom in WW2, because they didn't do anything for you, so **** 'em, yea?

Did you pay for your education up to 18? Did you pay for your own medical bills? Did you thrive in a stable, peaceful, ordered society that is constructed and kept going by all the peoples taxes paid to date?

Was your success done in complete isolation or as a product of the system created around you. So when you do well, far in excess of what is needed, then yes, you should contribute more back to society, because as pointed out, the effect of the higher taxation on the higher portion of your earnings has less effect on you, except to irk your greed.
 
billysielu said:
Yes I'd be in favour of scrapping it. Probably have to phase it out because people are expecting it, but yeah eventually we should remove it.

I'm almost at the point of saying the same goes for the NHS, but not quite there yet.
Click to expand...

Do you realise the sort of society you'd be bringing on yourself if we didn't have public services funded by all of us? No roads, no ambulances, no sewers, no fire brigade to put out your house, no schools to educate your own children or even you and the crime rate would soar but there would be no police, courts or prison service to protect you or your property.

What you suggest is a very short term view in my opinion.
 
Hades said:
Do you realise the sort of society you'd be bringing on yourself if we didn't have public services funded by all of us? No roads, no ambulances, no sewers, no fire brigade to put out your house, no schools to educate your own children or even you and the crime rate would soar but there would be no police, courts or prison service to protect you or your property.

What you suggest is a very short term view in my opinion.
Click to expand...

He isn't suggesting no public funding, he's suggesting a flat rate of tax. They aren't even close to being the same thing :confused:
 
The Mad Rapper said:
He isn't suggesting no public funding, he's suggesting a flat rate of tax. They aren't even close to being the same thing :confused:
Click to expand...

But the TPA proposed flat rate tax system relies on a massively scaled back public spending budget (I'm using this because I haven't seen any other concrete proposals). So they are fairly close, given the level of cuts to public services that would be required.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
He isn't suggesting no public funding, he's suggesting a flat rate of tax. They aren't even close to being the same thing :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry I haven't read the last few pages so missed that context. I picked up on the "I shouldn't pay for someone elses child" which in my view is completely different to the rate of tax.

I do actually agree with a flat rate of tax because the more you earn then the more you pay in tax, but in what I consider a fair way.

There is actually a 60% tax band in theis country which in my opinion is outrageous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom