David Blunkett wants a death tax.

FoxEye · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:19

Terminal_Boy said:
Indeed. I've stopped investing in emerging markets and am now putting my savings into canned food and automatic weapons.

I take it you don't think growing inequality (not just here - globally) is not an issue, then? Won't have any serious repercussions?

balky12 · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:21

FoxEye said:
I take it you don't think growing inequality (not just here - globally) is not an issue, then? Won't have any serious repercussions?

I'm pretty sure it has always existed? Hasn't caused too much harm so far...

Bear · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:23

Zatoichi.uK said:
Tax corporations properly and we won't have situations like this maybe?

I think we should do both and not just one or the other. For the most part people whining about this are against it purely because of greed.

For those that are parents, I can understand that they would like to see their children looked after when they are gone but as you can give them £325k tax free which is plenty of money to see most people straight, there really isnt a problem.

BunnyKillBot · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:27

Bear said:
I think we should do both and not just one or the other. For the most part people whining about this are against it purely because of greed.

For those that are parents, I can understand that they would like to see their children looked after when they are gone but as you can give them £325k tax free which is plenty of money to see most people straight, there really isnt a problem.

But bear, they might not get the pool house and the home cinema room :mad:

Uther · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:38

Pay tax all your life, then pay tax on it all again when you die, perfect.

Mynight · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:39

I like my pool and cinema room though

.

FoxEye · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:41

balky12 said:
I'm pretty sure it has always existed? Hasn't caused too much harm so far...

Sorry, that's not the case. Inequality to some degree has always existed, but the gap between rich and poor has increased steadily for decades.

In the US and UK, a culture of entitlement among the richest has arisen that is not as strong in other rich nations. Elitist views and behaviour are now seeping into the mainstream, so that even the poor are heard to call for lower taxes. That is how deep the confusion goes. A 2011 study of 18 OECD countries found that the optimal top tax rate for the marginal earnings of the very rich might be over 80 per cent. With that, a country could increase productivity (which could be green productivity), while ‘no one but the mega rich would lose out’. The authors of the study show top tax rates to have fallen since the 1970s and the income share of the richest 1 per cent to have grown in almost perfect correlation.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/inequality-the-slow-revolution/

There's 100s of newspaper columns and TV programmes all saying the same thing.

Interesting comment about the 80% top rate tax tho. Effectively caps the amount anyone can earn.

Glaucus · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:45

FoxEye said:
Sorry, that's not the case. Inequality to some degree has always existed, but the gap between rich and poor has increased steadily for decades.
.

And is a totally meaningless and pointless figure.

The only important bit is percentage in poverty and that's been decreasing.
So what if the rich have been getting richer, so has everyone else.

ArchAnGeL · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:46

FoxEye said:
Perhaps you've not been keeping up with current events? Our society is a lot less "fair", in terms of wealth distribution, than it was a few decades ago (eg, the 70s).

Educated people - economists, sociologists, etc - are saying that the divide is increasing, and that history does not paint a rosy picture when this has happened before.

If wealth isn't redistributed more than it is today, I would suggest that you look into having your own private protection. Because if you squeeze the bottom more as the next Tory govt inevitably will, and the rich carry on getting richer, the most likely outcome is social unrest. Again, it's not me saying this, but the experts.

I'm much closer to the bottom than I am the top but I work hard for what I have. There were times when that meant I was severely squeezed so I took control and made changes to get what I wanted.

Precisely that attitude is the difference (throughout my life) between me and the majority of those in the surrounding estates. It's got nothing to do with the rich suppressing the poor. It should be your inspiration.

Bear · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:49

Glaucus said:
And is a totally meaningless and pointless figure.

The only important bit is percentage in poverty and that's been decreasing.
So what if the rich have been getting richer, so has everyone else.

Even some of the rich believe its bad which is why they become philanthropist. In a recent programme about the super rich, one of the guys who was super rich could see the problems of income inequality.

He could see at a certain point the pitch forks would come out and the people rising up

GreatAuk · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:50

Bear said:
I think we should do both and not just one or the other. For the most part people whining about this are against it purely because of greed.

For those that are parents, I can understand that they would like to see their children looked after when they are gone but as you can give them £325k tax free which is plenty of money to see most people straight, there really isnt a problem.

I think a crucial consideration here is what the parents want their money to be spent on. I don't understand why someone's assets suddenly become the government's just because they die.

Two situations:
1. Man works well paying job whole life and makes an effort to save money in order to provide financial security for himself and his family. A significant portion his wealth is used keeping him in a care home when he gets dementure in old age. Dies and is taxed on his assets, resulting in his children getting a reduced inheritance, even though part of the reason the man worked was to provide for his children.
2. Man works well paying job whole life and lives from hand to mouth, going on expensive holidays abroad, rents a huge house, and relies on the state to provide for him when he gets dementure and has to live in a care home in his old age. Children get zero inheritance, but then never intended on giving them anything anyway.

In case 1 the man got much less say in where his money went than in case 2, purely because he wanted to provide financial security for himself and his children. Not justice imo.

Glaucus · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:50

Bear said:
Even some of the rich believe its bad which is why they become philanthropist. In a recent programme about the super rich, one of the guys who was super rich could see the problems of income inequality.

He could see at a certain point the pitch forks would come out and the people rising up

Which doesn't make it bad, it just means they are thinking off themself. so nicely undermining your own point.

It really is not an issue at all.

And without philanthropists, we would be much worse off as the things they fund would not get funded otherwise, you really think spreading the money around will mean people will fund such things, off course not.

It's a terrible idea trying to limit wealth. It hurts everyone, it hurts the economy.

Bear · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:51

ArchAnGeL said:
I'm much closer to the bottom than I am the top but I work hard for what I have. There were times when that meant I was severely squeezed so I took control and made changes to get what I wanted.

Precisely that attitude is the difference (throughout my life) between me and the majority of those in the surrounding estates. It's got nothing to do with the rich suppressing the poor. It should be your inspiration.

There are plenty of us that arent close to the bottom and are doing well for themselves that can see there is a problem

Macro · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:51

ArchAnGeL said:
When I die I want the estate I have worked hard to build up to pass to who I choose. It is my estate and I have paid tax all my life.

I do not wish to redistribute my estate to achieve some sort of social utopia where you can doss your life away or lets be kind, exhibit poor financial planning.

If it is the burden of social care we are talking about then lets restrict the amount of children you can have relative to your need for state support. Does that sound harsh? That is the decision made by many responsible families today. We would have liked more children but had to balance that off against how we wish to provide for them and what we need to do in order to achieve that.

I cannot believe this tax proposal would be popular with and hard working families unless you are going to say, only applies to rich people which I would also have an issue with.

Couldn't agree more - I've worked hard to look after my family and claim absolutely nothing from the state. I left school at 17 and have worked every day since.

As far as I'm concerned the money and resources I've built for my family from scratch is "family" money and it'll be a cold day in hell before that gets given away in some kind of enforced "social equality" plan for the poor flopsy bunnies who haven't been quite so fortunate.

Can't help but notice the people claiming passing on your family money to your children is "pure greed" seem to be Ok with others being given an unearned slice of the pie.

In effect all that would happen is I would ensure I'd passed any assets and money to my children before I die.

Stupid typical lefty twaddle trying to appeal to the "working class" before an election... Great way to screw over anyone working class who has had the hard work, foresight and luck to provide well for their family and try to make sure they have the resources to not be a burden on the state when they retire.

markweatherill · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:52

Mr Blunkett would find China has a good handle on this issue.

Terminal_Boy · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:54

FoxEye said:
I take it you don't think growing inequality (not just here - globally) is not an issue, then? Won't have any serious repercussions?

I think it's going to have serious repercussions here and abroad.

As the rich can comfortably avoid all such "make the rich pay for the poor" schemes that misguided governments dream up, said governments will continue to squeeze the net providers to fund the net absorbers.

There will come a point where the net providers have had enough and any law/tax which basically prevents them leaving any positive legacy to their offspring could well be the tipping point.

Bear · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:57

Glaucus said:
Which doesn't make it bad, it just means they are thinking off yourself. so nicely undermining your own point.

It really is not an issue at all.

There is no undermining of any point only that you didnt understand. If the rich had everything and the vast poor around them had very little because the gap is growing then at some point, the number of people that have little will start to ask questions and might turn to civil disobedience, crime or kick off all together.

cheesyboy · 5 Feb 2015 at 12:57

Macro said:
Couldn't agree more - I've worked hard to look after my family and claim absolutely nothing from the state. I left school at 17 and have worked every day since.

As far as I'm concerned the money and resources I've built for my family from scratch is "family" money and it'll be a cold day in hell before that gets given away in some kind of enforced "social equality" plan for the poor flopsy bunnies who haven't been quite so fortunate.

Can't help but notice the people claiming passing on your family money to your children is "pure greed" seem to be Ok with others being given an unearned slice of the pie.

In effect all that would happen is I would ensure I'd passed any assets and money to my children before I die.

Stupid typical lefty twaddle trying to appeal to the "working class" before an election... Great way to screw over anyone working class who has had the hard work, foresight and luck to provide well for their family.

It's not hard-working you that gets screwed over, though, is it. It's your offspring who contributed nothing to that wealth that miss out.

Under what hard work, talent or merit have they earned that?

And it's not about giving the money "unearned" to others, but taking less from them in the form of other taxes to fund the state.

Can't be bothered to re-type what I've already written on the subject, but this post I put in the Speakers Corner IHT thread summarises a lot of the issues from my perspective;
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26342368&postcount=82

Bear · 5 Feb 2015 at 13:00

GreatAuk said:
I think a crucial consideration here is what the parents want their money to be spent on. I don't understand why someone's assets suddenly become the government's just because they die.

Two situations:
1. Man works well paying job whole life and makes an effort to save money in order to provide financial security for himself and his family. A significant portion his wealth is used keeping him in a care home when he gets dementure in old age. Dies and is taxed on his assets, resulting in his children getting a reduced inheritance, even though part of the reason the man worked was to provide for his children.
2. Man works well paying job whole life and lives from hand to mouth, going on expensive holidays abroad, rents a huge house, and relies on the state to provide for him when he gets dementure and has to live in a care home in his old age. Children get zero inheritance, but then never intended on giving them anything anyway.

In case 1 the man got much less say in where his money went than in case 2, purely because he wanted to provide financial security for himself and his children. Not justice imo.

What you say is not relevant because if you, yourself cant sort your life out if given £325k tax free then you dont deserve anything IMO.

FoxEye · 5 Feb 2015 at 13:01

Glaucus said:
And is a totally meaningless and pointless figure.

The only important bit is percentage in poverty and that's been decreasing.
So what if the rich have been getting richer, so has everyone else.

Household debt is at record levels.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-recovery-household-debt-quadruples-1990.html

"Everybody is getting richer" is simply spin.

I watched the same programme Bear saw; it has some really eye-opening information. Over the last few years, the rich have seen enormous gains in their income and net worth. Enormous.

The "gains" made by the poorest have been insignificant. They've seen their wages increase by a tiny amount, seen rents get massively more expensive, and have had to rely on increasing benefits to make ends meet.