the snap general election thread

GreatApe

kinger101 wrote: »

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

We are all Great Apes

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

do you own a property? if not can you afford to buy one?

kinger101

economic wrote: »

do you own a property? if not can you afford to buy one?

I don't see why it's relevant, but I've just sold one and will be buying another.

Chrysalis

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I used to think little impact as it would be hard to organise the electorate to vote one way or another, however I have seen very locally a prime example of "paper candidates" where there is a candidate for Labour and Lib Dems in my area, but they are not actively campaigning and I have seen no literature from these parties.
This is effectively leaving it to a straight choice between the Conservatives and SNP.

It does kind of mock the unionist parties position of campaigning in every seat, when they clearly do not campaign in certain areas.

indeed

in 1997 a paper candidate accidentally even won a seat, he was in what was at the time a safe tory seat with a cabinet tory minister. He had no intention of winning. Its just further evidence really of how bad first past the post is, if you in such a seat you not really voting as the result is forseen. But of course very occasionally a shock result happens.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

So are you saying the government deserve your estate more than your children?

Would you make as much of an effort to build wealth if you thought anything you didn't manage to spend would go to the state? I'd pack up work tomorrow if I thought this was the case.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't see why it's relevant, but I've just sold one and will be buying another.

He's an idiot or at least the persona he projects onto this forum is... He must be really insecure.

Chrysalis

wotsthat wrote: »

So are you saying the government deserve your estate more than your children?

Would you make as much of an effort to build wealth if you thought anything you didn't manage to spend would go to the state? I'd pack up work tomorrow if I thought this was the case.

This is the problem of today.

People forget we are as a country one big society who are here to help each other, each person plays their own part.

However some people think instead each individual only has a responsibility to themselves and their family, anything going to the nation society (the state) is seen as theft of their wealth.

They conveniently forget the foundations of what allowed them to have success in life is supplied by the state such as.

Security
Transportation infrastructure.
National Health Services
Education
Monetary System
National Insurance

So e.g. if you took away the state tomorrow, these would be the immediate repercussions.

Everyone who isnt employed and not getting private income would cease to have an income and as such stop spending in shops, services etc.
As a result of the above crime would skyrocket.
Also crime would skyrocket as the police would be gone.
People will die at a much higher rate as there is no NHS to treat conditions, remember the days when people died from a tooth abscess.
Rubbish would be everywhere due to no refuge services.
Chaos on the roads due to lack of maintenance and also no traffic signals.
Nothing to enforce laws, so effectively laws would cease to exist.
Criminals would all be free to do what they want.

But thats ok, if you think the only reason to accrue wealth is just for your own private benefit. Remember those riots a few years back? That would be the norm all year round.

So ...

Take into account, you would need to employ your own security service to fend of rioters.
Increased costs of transportation.
Loss of sales.
Less healthy workforce possibly even dieing.

Your profits would nosedive.

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't see why it's relevant, but I've just sold one and will be buying another.

i just wanted to check as based on my experience it is usually those who cant afford to buy who are bitter and come up with nonsense such as what you have come up with.

kinger101

wotsthat wrote: »

So are you saying the government deserve your estate more than your children?

Would you make as much of an effort to build wealth if you thought anything you didn't manage to spend would go to the state? I'd pack up work tomorrow if I thought this was the case.

I'm not suggesting 100% tax on everything over a penny. I'm suggesting something more akin to 1997. I think there could be some positives to raising more through IHT.

People might be more inclined to downsize.
People might be more inclined to spend it all before they die, which would also provide a boost for the economy.

People didn't give up work in 1997 because of IHT. And people generally don't move abroad to avoid paying it because they have ties here.

Any form of tax is money being taken away from me which I might spend on myself or someone else. IHT is no different in that respect. An extra £4B raised in IHT is money that doesn't need to come from another tax or borrow (and repaid with interest).

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

He's an idiot or at least the persona he projects onto this forum is... He must be really insecure.

i am not insecure or an idiot but you are entitled to your own opinions of me of course.