David Blunkett wants a death tax.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Did I say I wasn't fortunate? You keep putting words in my mouth.
I am fortunate, thanks to my dads hard work. I hope I can do the same for my kids.
I just think it's wrong that when my parents die there will be inheritence tax, capital gains tax, and death tax if this goes through. All on money that has already been taxed.
Whether I'm fortunate, 'rich', well off, 'priviledged' or any other name you want to call me it doesn't matter.
I think it's wrong, on whoever's money it is. Not to mention that tis will hurt the lower income/ working class families more anyways.
How the **** would it hurt lower income families more?!
Have you any clue what being a lower income family actually entails?
30% of households do not own their home or even have a mortgage. They have literally no assets to pass on. How would they be worse off?
It would just encourage people to squirrel money away for their children in other ways which may provide less security. Most people prefer to live and die in their own house, not stuff their money under a mattress and live in sheltered housing.
Blunket has always been a bit of an ass, never liked anything he has said, none of labour live in the real world any more, they just want to force everyone into taking part in their horrible "utopia" while they all swan about in big cars and big houses in the country.
Blunket has always been a bit of an ass, never liked anything he has said, none of labour live in the real world any more, they just want to force everyone into taking part in their horrible "utopia" while they all swan about in big cars and big houses in the country.
The same money is taxed over and over and over, as it moves from person to person. Taxed when it is earned and taxed when it is spent.
There is no limit to the number of times the same money can be taxed.
The point is, you haven't paid any tax on it until it passes to you.
Anyway, like another poster said, there will ways to avoid this, especially if you can afford an accountant. We lost roughly £119 billion last year to tax evasion and avoidance. Billions are still being lost when companies funnel money through Luxembourg, etc.
He's a typical champagne socialist who was instrumental in labours open borders idea which has bred some of the Jihadists we now have walking the streets.
You mean, they don't even have a butler? How do they survive?
Inheritance tax is already around, all this does is ramp it up to insane levels.
Start getting companies and organisations to pay the taxes they owe before chasing after citizens for more, the rich would manage to avoid this whilst the normal folks would be hammered by it, same as inheritance tax which kicks in at a fairly low level.
Start getting companies and organisations to pay the taxes they owe before chasing after citizens for more, the rich would manage to avoid this whilst the normal folks would be hammered by it, same as inheritance tax which kicks in at a fairly low level.
Alright I was wrong to include low income; should have been more specific and menioned home owners. Many people out there who have a mortgage but not a pot to **** in. Point still stands for working class...
Anyways... how much money would this raise...?
Posted this yesterday, think it applies here:
When I’m in London I stay in a modest flat on the top of a tower block just a few yards from the extremely unglamorous and very noisy Shepherd’s Bush Green. By no stretch of the imagination is it a mansion, but if we get Ed Miliband as prime minister he’ll say that it is and charge me £30,000 every year for the privilege of owning it.
That isn’t completely the end of the world while I have a job, but one day, when my bladder has become leaky and I’ve been sacked, Miliband will still be on the doorstep every April demanding that I hand over 1% of what my flat is worth.
Apparently, if I really can’t afford his stupid new tax, he’ll let me pay after I’ve died and the flat has been sold. So that’s good news. To meet his demands I shall have to commit suicide.
Now I’m not going to get bogged down here in a verbal assault on the Labour leader. Because what worries me is that we are living in a country where he stands a very real chance of winning the election.
The mansion tax is popular. People have been told — by the Daily Mail, oddly enough — that the rich spend their time quaffing champagne, gorging on swan and jetting in and out of Los Angeles international airport with a dead leopard on their heads. And they think that it’s only fair these people should do their fair share to help those who live in Scotland.
Oh, for crying out loud, they already do — apart from Lewis Hamilton, obviously, but don’t worry about him, because to avoid paying his whack he has to live in Monaco, which on the Clarksometer is the second-worst place in the entire world.
No. Most rich people do contribute, and contribute massively. In fact it has been said that Britain’s wealthiest 1% pay almost a third of all the income tax received by the Treasury. But still Miliband wants them to cough up more. And the electorate may well decide he should get it. Which will cause the rich to move elsewhere, which will cause tax receipts to go down, not up (see France for details).
The mansion tax makes absolutely no sense, but it’s popular because in this country there’s a sense that the sun will shine every day and Scarlett Johansson will tuck you in every night if the pigs at the top have less on their table. This, however, is a theory that only really works in a weed-infested sixth-form common room.
Let’s take Warren Buffett as an example. He’s worth £48bn, which means he’s richer than Cambodia and Ghana put together, and there are those who say no single person should have this much money. Fine. So what if we took his fortune away and spread it out evenly among everyone else? You wouldn’t even get a tenner.
Let’s bring it closer to home. Let’s say we confiscated the assets of the Duke of Westminster and gave them all to the NHS. An excellent idea, a firebrand leftie would say. But his £8.5bn would be gone in less than a month.
I spoke the other day with a man who was cruising around the Caribbean on his extremely beautiful yacht. He told me that he would be there for a month more, after which he would switch to his slightly smaller yacht and sail to the Galapagos Islands for a few weeks.
Then he would fly in his private jet to Nice, where he’d rejoin his bigger boat for a summer in the Mediterranean, after which he’d go to his game reserve in South Africa.
Today this sort of thing is seen as revolting, and I cannot see why. Yes, he was born into a wealthy family and that makes him very lucky. But what difference does it make to you that he is spending the next six months on holiday?
It doesn’t matter whether he’s swimming with the turtles in the Pacific or working as a filing clerk in Watford: you will still live in the same house with the same stains on the carpet and the same wonky car.
Let me put it this way. If you hit a supermodel in the face with a tyre iron, would that somehow make the rest of the nation’s women more beautiful? Would your horse be faster if you cut one of Frankel’s legs off?
A couple of weeks ago a buffoon called Chris Bryant said it was iniquitous that the arts in Britain were dominated by people who’d been educated privately. There’s James Blunt, and Chris Martin out of Coldplay, and, er, Florence Welch out of the Machine, and, um . . .
The fact is this. Of the UK artists who had a top 40 album between 2010 and last year 72% went to a state school and 62% did not go to university.
So the shadow culture minister is talking out of his privately educated back bottom. Pop music is dominated by public-school kids in the same way as parliament is dominated by Liberal Democrats.
And anyway, who gives a damn? When I hear a tune I like, I don’t think, “Well, I’m not buying that because it was recorded by a load of smelly, poor people from a council estate”, any more than I think when I hear The Lady in Red, “Ah, this chap went to private school so it must be marvellous.”
Normal souls don’t think like the bitter and the twisted. I look at the people with whom I socialise now and I don’t have a clue where half of them went to school. I don’t care. Nor does anyone I know.
We employ the best candidates, choose friends based on their kindness and sense of wit and go to work to earn as much as we can. It’s not complicated.
But if Miliband wins the election it’ll get extremely complicated because everyone whose home is worth more than £2m will have to become a rent boy — or dead. Happily I’ve come up with a plan. I shall start a business and tour the country, valuing everyone’s house, no matter how big it is, at £1.9m.
That isn’t completely the end of the world while I have a job, but one day, when my bladder has become leaky and I’ve been sacked, Miliband will still be on the doorstep every April demanding that I hand over 1% of what my flat is worth.
Apparently, if I really can’t afford his stupid new tax, he’ll let me pay after I’ve died and the flat has been sold. So that’s good news. To meet his demands I shall have to commit suicide.
Now I’m not going to get bogged down here in a verbal assault on the Labour leader. Because what worries me is that we are living in a country where he stands a very real chance of winning the election.
The mansion tax is popular. People have been told — by the Daily Mail, oddly enough — that the rich spend their time quaffing champagne, gorging on swan and jetting in and out of Los Angeles international airport with a dead leopard on their heads. And they think that it’s only fair these people should do their fair share to help those who live in Scotland.
Oh, for crying out loud, they already do — apart from Lewis Hamilton, obviously, but don’t worry about him, because to avoid paying his whack he has to live in Monaco, which on the Clarksometer is the second-worst place in the entire world.
No. Most rich people do contribute, and contribute massively. In fact it has been said that Britain’s wealthiest 1% pay almost a third of all the income tax received by the Treasury. But still Miliband wants them to cough up more. And the electorate may well decide he should get it. Which will cause the rich to move elsewhere, which will cause tax receipts to go down, not up (see France for details).
The mansion tax makes absolutely no sense, but it’s popular because in this country there’s a sense that the sun will shine every day and Scarlett Johansson will tuck you in every night if the pigs at the top have less on their table. This, however, is a theory that only really works in a weed-infested sixth-form common room.
Let’s take Warren Buffett as an example. He’s worth £48bn, which means he’s richer than Cambodia and Ghana put together, and there are those who say no single person should have this much money. Fine. So what if we took his fortune away and spread it out evenly among everyone else? You wouldn’t even get a tenner.
Let’s bring it closer to home. Let’s say we confiscated the assets of the Duke of Westminster and gave them all to the NHS. An excellent idea, a firebrand leftie would say. But his £8.5bn would be gone in less than a month.
I spoke the other day with a man who was cruising around the Caribbean on his extremely beautiful yacht. He told me that he would be there for a month more, after which he would switch to his slightly smaller yacht and sail to the Galapagos Islands for a few weeks.
Then he would fly in his private jet to Nice, where he’d rejoin his bigger boat for a summer in the Mediterranean, after which he’d go to his game reserve in South Africa.
Today this sort of thing is seen as revolting, and I cannot see why. Yes, he was born into a wealthy family and that makes him very lucky. But what difference does it make to you that he is spending the next six months on holiday?
It doesn’t matter whether he’s swimming with the turtles in the Pacific or working as a filing clerk in Watford: you will still live in the same house with the same stains on the carpet and the same wonky car.
Let me put it this way. If you hit a supermodel in the face with a tyre iron, would that somehow make the rest of the nation’s women more beautiful? Would your horse be faster if you cut one of Frankel’s legs off?
A couple of weeks ago a buffoon called Chris Bryant said it was iniquitous that the arts in Britain were dominated by people who’d been educated privately. There’s James Blunt, and Chris Martin out of Coldplay, and, er, Florence Welch out of the Machine, and, um . . .
The fact is this. Of the UK artists who had a top 40 album between 2010 and last year 72% went to a state school and 62% did not go to university.
So the shadow culture minister is talking out of his privately educated back bottom. Pop music is dominated by public-school kids in the same way as parliament is dominated by Liberal Democrats.
And anyway, who gives a damn? When I hear a tune I like, I don’t think, “Well, I’m not buying that because it was recorded by a load of smelly, poor people from a council estate”, any more than I think when I hear The Lady in Red, “Ah, this chap went to private school so it must be marvellous.”
Normal souls don’t think like the bitter and the twisted. I look at the people with whom I socialise now and I don’t have a clue where half of them went to school. I don’t care. Nor does anyone I know.
We employ the best candidates, choose friends based on their kindness and sense of wit and go to work to earn as much as we can. It’s not complicated.
But if Miliband wins the election it’ll get extremely complicated because everyone whose home is worth more than £2m will have to become a rent boy — or dead. Happily I’ve come up with a plan. I shall start a business and tour the country, valuing everyone’s house, no matter how big it is, at £1.9m.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,406
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
My sister in law has spent the last 15 years at home caring for elderly parents. This is without any income of any sort whatsoever. One parent has now passed away and I don't imagine the other living for much longer.
The house she lives in is the family home. It has been paid for with money that was taxed.
If she had a large death duty to pay for she would be unable to afford to pay the tax without selling the home. It isn't any sort of luxury home.
Do those in favour of this sort of death tax think she should lose the roof over her head when her mother dies? If not why not?
The house she lives in is the family home. It has been paid for with money that was taxed.
If she had a large death duty to pay for she would be unable to afford to pay the tax without selling the home. It isn't any sort of luxury home.
Do those in favour of this sort of death tax think she should lose the roof over her head when her mother dies? If not why not?
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,733
- Location
- Auckland
Aren't you the call centre chap who Housey took to task in the other thread about money? The one where it was clear that you operated in very different arenas of wealth?
Wait. I'm not sure if I'm lampooning you or defending you now
Very good.
Of course she shouldn't. But you will get people here saying she should as it's not her house and the money she will still be getting is more than enough thanks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
They are dead. It is no longer their money. Because they are dead. Dead people do a rather poor job of either holding on to their money, or investing it wisely. If left to you, it becomes your money. Regardless of where it came from, you did not earn it. You did nothing economically productive to be entitled to it. You did not cure cancer or deliver world peace.
The significant irony of a previous poster calling this 'socialist claptrap' is capitalism rewards effective work output with capital gain. Receiving an inheritance is itself an act of patriarchal socialism!!!
Stop lieing to yourselves and justifying this carp with contradictions and excuses. The truth is this is about the rat race of life - your genetics, instinct and survival mechanisms drive you to give your kids the best possible life to ensure your genes succeed. The question is, does this darwinian method of eugenics match with what we scientifically know about human progress today.
Last edited:
Correct me if I am wrong. But it would be tied up into the house. The house doesn't technically become mine until the tax against it is paid?
(which would mean I would have to sell said house anyways)
I think that the tax should still apply, even in the face of your emotional example.
I know of a couple of people who have performed a similar role, but will/did receive no assets when their relatives died because they lived in council accommodation. Now, they didn't/won't (in one case - the other lives separately in their own council house) lose the family home due to the way council housing works. But they do suddenly get clobbered with the "bedroom tax", and don't get a cash windfall/majority ownership of a house.
Regardless of circumstance, you're one of the more fortunate members of our society if you get a windfall upon death of family.
I assume this would replace inheritance tax ? I haven't had time to read it.
I imagine most people here are of the age where their parents own a property and will be "passing it on" to them, of course there is a bias to this crazy proposal.
I think a straight reworking of inheritance tax closing the loop holes and gifting away your assets before you pop your clogs.
This forum does not reflect the UK population on a whole. Just a more wealthy, intelligent educated section of it on average. (hard to believe
)
The whole UK tax system is archaic and needs someone to rebuild it from the ground up.
When my Nan went doolally in her final year or 2 my mum and uncle considered putting her somewhere "sheltered accommodation" so that she would always have someone at hand if there was an emergency. (minimum wage portuguese or african who couldn't give a ****) THe price was ridiculous... Utterly unaffordable and basically designed to rake in every penny she had saved over her life and tens of thousands more my family would have to pay.
I imagine most people here are of the age where their parents own a property and will be "passing it on" to them, of course there is a bias to this crazy proposal.
I think a straight reworking of inheritance tax closing the loop holes and gifting away your assets before you pop your clogs.
This forum does not reflect the UK population on a whole. Just a more wealthy, intelligent educated section of it on average. (hard to believe
) The whole UK tax system is archaic and needs someone to rebuild it from the ground up.
When my Nan went doolally in her final year or 2 my mum and uncle considered putting her somewhere "sheltered accommodation" so that she would always have someone at hand if there was an emergency. (minimum wage portuguese or african who couldn't give a ****) THe price was ridiculous... Utterly unaffordable and basically designed to rake in every penny she had saved over her life and tens of thousands more my family would have to pay.
Last edited: