David Blunkett wants a death tax.

[Macro]

Private health care for myself would be prohibitively expensive, even though I am well paid. So my family should suffer because I happen to have been born with poor genes so you can pay less national insurance, right?

You appear to be confused how the NI system works. My wife, who has contributed to the NHS via NI for many, many years has taken out far less than she has put in. NI contributions go towards funding the NHS and some people will use less than they pay for, some more. That's how the system was designed. Also the more you earn the more NI you pay. If I had been fortunate enough to be born without bad genetics I'd be paying a lot of NI that would be going towards those who need the NHS more than me. I have no issue with that.


Selfishness, that's the problem nowadays. It's all me me me, and sod society or those lesser off.

You seem to be missing the very obvious fact that I already contribute to the NHS through Tax and NI and am happy to do so with the more I earn the more I contribute without the need for another additional tax. I fail to see, however dramatic your tizzy is how that is "sod everyone else".

Do you voluntarily pay more tax and NI than you have to to support people less well off than you or is it all Self, self, self?

I think you need to look a little closer to home for who is confused...

 

[EdwardTeach]

Disgusting socialism at its worst. Wealth redistribution is theft.

 

[Gilly]

Disgusting socialism at its worst. Wealth redistribution is theft.

Wow

 

[Macro]

Why? what difference does it make to the sense of me calling for a leveling of the playing field whether I do or don't nix my children's starting point?

That's more stupidity from you.

So are you saying a 10% death duty would create a level playing field for everyone? Or is your argument fairly pointless as you know you're never actually going to do it?

I don't think insults are really needed just for pointing out you're berating others for not doing something you've already said you're not going to do yourself?

 

[Mynight]

Disgusting socialism at its worst. Wealth redistribution is theft.

Freeman detected .

 

[cheesyboy]

So are you saying a 10% death duty would create a level playing field for everyone? Or is your argument fairly pointless as you know you're never actually going to do it?

I don't think insults are really needed just for pointing out you're berating others for not doing something you've already said you're not going to do yourself?

I'm not telling others to give away their wealth. in no way - that would be stupid, as people would be putting themselves at a disadvantage in a system which is set up to benefit those with money.

I'm saying the system should be adjusted so that people have no choice - wealth is redistribution between generations to allow more people to have the opportunity to be successful and bring wealth to the country.

10% wouldn't level things, no. It's a start.

And it wasn't an insult. I simply said you were offering stupidity to the argument.

 

[Macro]

The problem is that a death tax simply encourages people to distribute their wealth before they die and investigate other options that avoid excessive taxation.

I'm all for preventing the wealthy disproportionately amassing more wealth and an actual inheritance tax on inheritors and not dead people that is annual increased in line with inflation is all fair game. Adding new taxes on top of old taxes that are levied on dead people and are also easily avoided is not the way forwards IMO.

Agreed... As this is in effect "free money" perhaps it should be levied on everyone with no tax free allowance irrespective of their earnings? If we took out the portion of the population who inherit upto £650k from parents tax free rather than trying to penalise houses in the south east I dare say we'd contribute more to the state.

Based on the redistribution of wealth ideals surely you should give up (lets say) 20% of total inheritance no matter if it's £30k or £300k if you want to make a difference and object to children getting "free money" on principle?

 

[anything I don't mind]

Freeman detected .

A freeman is in comparison to what exactly? an enslaved man perhaps?

communism v2.0 you don't even own that house that you thought you owned.

 

[balky12]

I'm going to say it again just because.

Doesn't matter how much more you take from the rich the poor will still be poor and lazy will still be lazy.

It's fantasy thinking that bashing on the rich will improve the lives of everyone else.

If I went up to the prettiest girl in England and smacked her in the face with an iron the ugliest girls would not get any prettier.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I realy don't see why inequality is seen as a good indicator for economic progress. The way i see it is that the difference between the rich and the poor is irrelevant. Especially in the context of economic progress. What matters to the poor is not how rich the rich are, but how much the level that which is considered poor has increased relative to what it once was and how much less of the poor there are in existence and how much larger the amount of rich people there are relative to the past. That being said that poor are far richer than than the poor once was and there are definitely far less poor people than there used to be. This is without moving the level that which is considered poor to such a level that it includes 40% of the population. Sure if they keep increasing the level that which is considered poor then capitalism will seem like its not working. When in reality the poor are richer than they have ever been all thanks to capitalism. There will always be an inequality between the rich and the poor by definition. Trying to reach a point of equality is insanity.

 

[Worthy]

One of my employees

Totally OT but, do you own your own business now?

 

[Mynight]

A freeman is in comparison to what exactly? an enslaved man perhaps?

communism v2.0 you don't even own that house that you thought you owned.

How don't I exactly?

 

[FoxEye]

I realy don't see why inequality is seen as a good indicator for economic progress. The way i see it is that the difference between the rich and the poor is irrelevant. Especially in the context of economic progress. What matters to the poor is not how rich the rich are, but how much the level that which is considered poor has increased relative to what it once was and how much less of the poor there are in existence and how much larger the amount of rich people there are relative to the past. That being said that poor are far richer than than the poor once was and there are definitely far less poor people than there used to be. This is without moving the level that which is considered poor to such a level that it includes 40% of the population. Sure if they keep increasing the level that which is considered poor then capitalism will seem like its not working. When in reality the poor are richer than they have ever been all thanks to capitalism.

Depends. Are those rich people spending their fortunes or sitting on them?

If you spread that horde amongst the poor, they will spend it, putting it back into the economy. People sitting on vast fortunes benefits no-one.

And the rich seem driven/compelled forever to attempt to increase their earning power. They put their money to work earning them an even greater share of the wealth. The top 10% are estimated to earn >30% of total income, and it's increasing every year.

When you look at it that way, why is it unfair for them to pay 30% of the tax bill?

 

[FoxEye]

I'm going to say it again just because.

Doesn't matter how much more you take from the rich the poor will still be poor and lazy will still be lazy.

It's fantasy thinking that bashing on the rich will improve the lives of everyone else.

If I went up to the prettiest girl in England and smacked her in the face with an iron the ugliest girls would not get any prettier.

When you have the mindset that "survival of the fittest" applies to human society as well, your kind of logic makes sense.

You succeeded because you were fitter/better than those who didn't.

Why should you support them? If they can't support themselves, let them die off as nature intended.

They are where they are because they are lazy, or stupid, or disabled, or...

 

[Nevakonaza]

Labour grandee backs new levy on homes and questions why children of rich London pensioners should 'win the lottery' when they pass away

Why shouldn't they?..seriously the people in charge,and who has say in things are done in this country need to be shot.

 

[V F]

Depends. Are those rich people spending their fortunes or sitting on them?

If you spread that horde amongst the poor, they will spend it, putting it back into the economy. People sitting on vast fortunes benefits no-one.

And the rich seem driven/compelled forever to attempt to increase their earning power. They put their money to work earning them an even greater share of the wealth. The top 10% are estimated to earn >30% of total income, and it's increasing every year.

When you look at it that way, why is it unfair for them to pay 30% of the tax bill?

No? Really… It's power. Rich look after the rich.

 

[robgmun]

When you have the mindset that "survival of the fittest" applies to human society as well, your kind of logic makes sense.

You succeeded because you were fitter/better than those who didn't.

Why should you support them? If they can't support themselves, let them die off as nature intended.

They are where they are because they are lazy, or stupid, or disabled, or...

To change human nature you'll have to brainwash every person in the world and make sure you brainwash every child that is born, that's enslavement

 

[V F]

The majority are pretty conditioned as it is now and they don't even know it.

 

[OCPete]

All these extra taxes on money that has been already taxed are completely unfair.

People who earn more pay more tax. That's is 100% acceptable. Paying a % of your earning as tax means that by default if you earn more you pay more. There is even a sliding scale so those on higher salaries pay a larger percentage. Once again this is fair. Someone one a good wage pays a LOT of tax each month paying for vulnerable people which is quite right!

BUT once you have earnt that money (after tax) it is surely upto you to specify how you want to spend it! If you have a family you will spent it on some luxuries and critically your family. Why? Because providing for your family is the no1 basic human desire. Putting a roof over their heads and providing for them. When you are old and no longer so mobile your naturally look more to help your children and grandchildren. How can it be fair to draw an arbitrary line and prevent relatively well off parents providing the very best start in life to their children, and grand-children. Its a hideous idea! You have worked for it, and paid tax on it. It is then yours!

I can understand people arguing to changes income tax levels etc. This is a fairer argument. BUT once you have earnt the money (after tax) it is NOT up for more tax! Saving is all about planning for the future, either yours or your children's. Do we really want to incentivise people to spend every penny, die with nothing so as to avoid further penalties? This would tax savings. You are penalising prudent people who took care of their finances and avoided reliance on benefits.

Also inheritance type tax is EASY to avoid. Before either parents get too old or ill gift the majority of money and the house to children and live there rent free. If rules state the gov can steal % of anything gifted in the last X years, gift earlier. Not hard to work out an avoidance scheme is it? Do some politicians think "rich" people are stupid and also unable to procure simple financial advise.

Tax avoidance is completely separate. EVERYONE should pay their fair share. Its just taxing prudent savers for a second time that is utterly wrong.

 

[balky12]

When you have the mindset that "survival of the fittest" applies to human society as well, your kind of logic makes sense.

You succeeded because you were fitter/better than those who didn't.

Why should you support them? If they can't support themselves, let them die off as nature intended.

They are where they are because they are lazy, or stupid, or disabled, or...

I am kind of this view personally. But I do agree that some people do need help, and should get it (disabled, etc.). Rightly so. That the richer can afford to pay more and should pay more. They already do, it's the nature of the tax system.

But to just keep making up new tax laws to try and just take more money form the rich for the sake of it and to please those people who like the idea of bashing the rich is just silly.