Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[The Mad Rapper]

For the final time, I am not saying that your system is wrong, or that you should be taxed more or that you should not enjoy the rewards of your labour. I am just saying that the word "fair" when it comes to many things, inlcuding taxation, is entirely subjective.

OK.

 

[krooton]

No, I meant Prime Minister, but we've just gotten a new one so

I know, it was a lame attempt at a subsequent joke on my part

 

[Greebo]

How? How much is 'enough'?

When the fees from tax advisors is less than the tax you save

In my gf's case, I'm free so it was easy. In my bosses case it costs about £10,000 a year to save him around £100,000 per annum in tax. Net gain +£90,000 in his pocket.

 

[skippy2421]

stuff explaining parental attitudes and the nature to provide for your kids much better than i can.

Well said.

I think this IHT bit has been covered now.

 

[Mr Jack]

You are so bitter it's untrue.

Yes, because believing that we should have a fair society in which all have an equal opportunity to succeed is a sure sign of bitterness.

Do you come from an impoverished broken home or something? By your token, you must despise the Royal Family as well do you? All those Castles and all that land and they've done nothing to earn it!

Actually I have a wonderful family, a relatively privileged background, and am quite pro our royalty, although I think most of their should be considered held in trust for the nation rather than their private property.

 

[waxapple]

Theresa May cannot be any worse than Harman

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Theresa_May
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Harriet_Harman

She bothered to turn up to vote a lot less, though still better than some.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/theresa_may/maidenhead
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/harriet_harman/camberwell_and_peckham

To be honest, they're both as bad as each other.
I think, on balance, I would marginally rather Theresa May. but neither is the preferred overall option.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Yes, because believing that we should have a fair society in which all have an equal opportunity to succeed is a sure sign of bitterness.

We all do have an equal opportunity to succeed? Life is what you make it. If your parents give you help along the way then that's great, but it doesn't denigrate your own opportunity, or the opportunity of one's peers.

Actually I have a wonderful family, a relatively privileged background, and am quite pro our royalty, although I think most of their should be considered held in trust for the nation rather than their private property.

Well if that's true, then I am surprised you hold the view you do - it seems at complete odds with your upbringing. Unless you are one of those 'rebels' of course.

 

[D.P.]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing for, and I believe Dolph has argued for that in many threads in SC as well.
You have a 10-15k untaxed income, and then say a flat 30% on everything above this (for income tax).

Local tax (council/community/whatever) should work as a fixed amount per person due to each person being an equal drain on the local resources

Indeed, I'm 110% for such a system.

It is the only way of taxation that makes any logical sense.

You set a threshold at what someone needs to earn to live a basic life, a set tax rate of about 30% above this.

A simplified system of benefits in place to help those in honest financial difficulty.

And an open tax system without all these stealth taxes. No Inheritance tax, no tax on savings. Increase VAT to 20% so it is line with europe.


Local tax should be based on per person level, as this is the cost to the council. The size of a house makes no damn difference to how much the council must spend. Its not like someone comes around every month to cut your grass and wash your windows! 2 people living in a large house cost the council less than 5 people in1 small house.

 

[RDM]

Yes, because believing that we should have a fair society in which all have an equal opportunity to succeed is a sure sign of bitterness.

It was more the trying to tear others down that was more of a sign to be honest. Thinking it unfair that others get something you don't and wanting to take it off them.

Once again, socialism seems to be a race to the bottom.

 

[Mr Jack]

Ok, what about taking a different angle, that used by David Cameron during his campaign: Namely the idea to promote a responsible society that saves and works hard. How does knowing that once you've reached a level that the state deems to be "rich" the state will dip its hands into your children’s inheritance promote saving and responsibility?

Yes, that's the one good argument for inheritance. I don't think it outweighs the unmeritocratic bias of inheritance, but is probably a good reason that there should be some tax free inheritance allowance.

Why does being born in the U.K. and not Nigeria entitle you to "such a leg up in life"? Oh yeah, because people in this country worked for centuries to ensure we were a world leader.

What a nonsense argument.

Just like that Father may have worked 7am-10pm in the city to ensure his children could have a more comfortable life than he did. I'm not going to be patronising, and I don't have kids either, but I'm guessing you don’t and I feel your opinion might change when you do.

Of course parents want to give the best to their children, it's an entirely natural instinct. They want their children to have better chances than other people's children, the best education, the best jobs, and so on. Of course they do. Nothing wrong with that. However, the problem is that the effect of that on society as a whole, especially across multiple generations, is to make things considerable less fair and meritocratic. Your chances in life become determined not by your own abilities, but by your parents position. I believe everyone, whether born to a single mum on a council estate or a heritatary peer who owns thousands of acres of country estate deserves the same chances in life. Now, of course, there is no real way that could be possible without the most abborant injustices but we can, and should, try to construct a society in which their chances are as equal as possible.

 

[Raumarik]

Indeed, I'm 110% for such a system.

It is the only way of taxation that makes any logical sense.

You set a threshold at what someone needs to earn to live a basic life, a set tax rate of about 30% above this.

A simplified system of benefits in place to help those in honest financial difficulty.

And an open tax system without all these stealth taxes. No Inheritance tax, no tax on savings. Increase VAT to 20% so it is line with europe.


Local tax should be based on per person level, as this is the cost to the council. The size of a house makes no damn difference to how much the council must spend. Its not like someone comes around every month to cut your grass and wash your windows! 2 people living in a large house cost the council less than 5 people in1 small house.

I'm against a local tax like that, I'd much rather it was a local sales tax as it always seems fairer to tax people on items that are non-essential. That way everyone pays, even those on benefits who choose to purchase non-essentials. Although I must admit I'd like to see less taxes and have them bundled in together rather than more "new" tax schemes.

 

[krooton]

It was more the trying to tear others down that was more of a sign to be honest. Thinking it unfair that others get something you don't and wanting to take it off them.

Once again, socialism seems to be a race to the bottom.

Lowest common denominator syndrome.

People only deserve a certain amount, the rest is down to luck and how much effort they wish to put in. Punishing those who are lucky or make an effort is completely backwards.

 

[Amp34]

Except that all of that is easily possible within the current levels of inheritance tax. You don't need to ramp up the threshold to a level that will only benefit the very rich to provide enough money to pay for a house deposit.

And as for house's being in families for years, why does having a rich ancestor entitle you to such a leg up in life?

Not really, unless you live up north perhaps.

Do you know the origins of IHT? It was originally brought in to tax the inheritence of the stupidly rich (say the top 1%) it stayed around that for a long time, until around 15 years ago where the massive increase in house prices meant it now affects something like 50% of families. Fair? Really?

If you live in the south east a reasonable 3-4 bedroomed house will quite possibly take you over the threshold as it stands now! It's one of the things my parents are passionate about, because they see it that having worked hard for 30+ years (one a builder and the other working a variety of below national average jobs) and scrimped and saved, not being able to give us many toys or treats when we were younger etc they should not have to hand over a large chunk of that when they die.

Personally the idea of sticking the threshold up to around £1m is an excellent idea, it starts to readdress the issue and remove the threshold from "working class" families to those that actually have a lot of money. Having said that I still think IHT is wrong either way. You have paid tax on that money already so why pay again?

 

[Strife212]

Socialists angers me sometimes, inheritance tax is the main area they expose themselves as selfish and jealous

I wont even inherit an estate that will trigger inheritance tax, and I still think it's a joke.

 

[skippy2421]

oooooooooooo new secretary of state is on his way here! wondered where everybody went, suppose i best wander off to see mr Pickles

 

[Naffa]

Socialists angers me, inheritance tax is the main area they expose themselves as selfish and jealous

Amazing. I'm a socialist, so I must be selfish and jealous. How do you know such things? I'm in awe.

*Hopes no one apart from Rapper noticed*

 

[Strife212]

I edited it to say sometimes, ie if you support inheritance tax

 

[Naffa]

Well, socialists anger me sometimes as well.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Amazing. I'm a socialist, so I must be selfish and jealous. How do you know such things? I'm in owe.

Are you also in awe?

 

[Amp34]

Of course parents want to give the best to their children, it's an entirely natural instinct. They want their children to have better chances than other people's children, the best education, the best jobs, and so on. Of course they do. Nothing wrong with that. However, the problem is that the effect of that on society as a whole, especially across multiple generations, is to make things considerable less fair and meritocratic. Your chances in life become determined not by your own abilities, but by your parents position. I believe everyone, whether born to a single mum on a council estate or a heritatary peer who owns thousands of acres of country estate deserves the same chances in life. Now, of course, there is no real way that could be possible without the most abborant injustices but we can, and should, try to construct a society in which their chances are as equal as possible.

It's not necessarily even that, some parents don't want their children to suffer as much as they did when they were just starting out in the big bad world. It's even more pertinent now when most couples will have a really difficult time getting a morgage for a house big enough to have a family in due to the massive increase in house prices.