the snap general election thread

GreatApe

kinger101 wrote: »

Dead people don't need them

Sure the dead are dead and stop existing so need nowt

But the living are going to be mighty !!!!ed off if you tell them your going to take 50% of everything they own once they die. The children of the living are going to be !!!!ed off too and so will the grand children.

the government has given away about £4B per year in easy money when they're supposed to be tackling the deficit.

If its so easy why not just put on a 100% IHT and reduce the nil band to £0?
That would bring in £150 billion a year, the dead dont care, that is enough money to reudce the deficit to zero and start paying back some of the national debt. Maybe that can be the next labor policy, see how far it gets them, this easy money idea of yours

kinger101

economic wrote: »

but in 1997 if one spouse dies then their assets is passed on to the children and anything above the threshold is taxed. same again when the 2nd spouse dies. the total IHT threshold is still 2 * the threshold. current rules are slightly better obviously but the 1997 rules can easily be managed as to make no difference - by splitting assets 50-50 say.

the 4bn wont be 4bn is they take away dead peoples houses. it will be a lot lower then 4bn tax take.

if you do this - take dead peoples property away instead of passing it down to children then parents will simply transfer the property in their childrens name in good time as to avoid it. if there is a law that says they cant do that, then why not sell before death and just live off the proceeds or pass it to the children who will then buy homes themselves? your arguments are silly and not thought out well.

My arguments are silly? That's a bit rich considering you've just drafted a complete load of waffle without even knowing the basics of IHT. Google "gifts with reservation".

You are GreatApe. Most people on here are aware of that.

kinger101

GreatApe wrote: »

Sure the dead are dead and stop existing so need nowt
But the living are going to be mighty !!!!ed off if you tell them your going to take 50% of everything they own once they die. The children of the living are going to be !!!!ed off too and so will the grand children.

Nobody deserves their parents wealth.

If its so easy why not just put on a 100% IHT and reduce the nil band to £0?
That would bring in £150 billion a year, the dead dont care, that is enough money to reudce the deficit to zero and start paying back some of the national debt. Maybe that can be the next labor policy, see how far it gets them, this easy money idea of yours

Thank you Aunt Sally.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

Which I assume you were in favour of as it resulted in the total tax take increasing, allowing for more public spending.

The last 7 years have seen a massive increase in the share of total taxation paid by the richest 1% and 5% (although to be fair this is to a large extent due to the lib dem policy of large increases in the personal allowance).

What I think is not the point. I am just saying it was a choice that was made.

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

My arguments are silly? That's a bit rich considering you've just drafted a complete load of waffle without even knowing the basics of IHT. Google "gifts with reservation".

You are GreatApe. Most people on here are aware of that.

i dont see how it matters. normally most couples share everything anyway. houses and saving accounts. the only things they may not share are pensions and inheritances from respective parents of each of the spouses. unless i am mistaken pensions canbe inherited free of IHT and it not included in IHT thresholds in the first place.

now if you are saying government would not allow tax to be avoided by selling a home before death and passing the cash to the children, then at the extreme you will see house prices collapse to nothing and you have effectively gone to full socialism in housing.

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

Nobody deserves their parents wealth.



Thank you Aunt Sally.

if no one deserves the wealth of the parents, then why are you saying it should be taxed? because if it is taxed clearly someone or some people are deserving it? are you now saying once the parents are dead then we should burn the house/savings/investment down and start over?

wotsthat

GreatApe wrote: »

Sure the dead are dead and stop existing so need nowt

But the living are going to be mighty !!!!ed off if you tell them your going to take 50% of everything they own once they die. The children of the living are going to be !!!!ed off too and so will the grand children.

..and importantly dead people who need nothing don't have a vote.

Whereas the living who either want to pass on wealth or receive it do.

kinger101

economic wrote: »

if no one deserves the wealth of the parents, then why are you saying it should be taxed? because if it is taxed clearly someone or some people are deserving it? are you now saying once the parents are dead then we should burn the house down and start over?

Oh the irony. Do you realize "Aunt Sally" is another term for a straw man argument.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

Nobody deserves their parents wealth.

but the government do?

kinger101

wotsthat wrote: »

but the government do?

It's our government. The money gets spend on some things we like, and some thing we don't like. Just like every other tax.