the snap general election thread

kinger101

economic wrote: »

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.

I thought it might be so you can direct some personal comment against me. It's very poor that you come on a forum and can't have a difference of opinion with someone without resulting to insults.

economic

Chrysalis wrote: »

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.

what about the taxes these people who have built up wealth have paid for 40 years or so? are you saying there should be further taxes on wealth that has already been taxed?

you will probably say that the houses they buy was free gains etc but then why stop at houses? why not taxes investments and savings. after all all that is free gains right?

wotsthat

Chrysalis wrote: »

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.

Isn't the trick to find the balance between people's desire to do their best for society in general and their desire to do the best for their offspring?

There's no point trying to guilt trip people - I wish the best for your children but let's not fool ourselves that, in my view, my kids take priority over yours and vice versa.

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

I thought it might be so you can direct some personal comment against me. It's very poor that you come on a forum and can't have a difference of opinion with someone without resulting to insults.

its not an insult. a good thorough appreciation of ones arguments should include checking for biases. biases are a cause of some arguments and is much harder to convince that their argument has flaws - as they just keep going back to life not being fair etc etc.

i think it would be helpful to state in detail what you actually propose as being a solution as just saying we should tax the wealth of dead people doesnt come close to a solution anyone would take seriously.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

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).

I certainly intend that my estate pays not a penny in IHT. Currently that plan involves me giving away money before I have enough saved to secure my own future.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

wotsthat wrote: »

I certainly intend that my estate pays not a penny in IHT. Currently that plan involves me giving away money before I have enough saved to secure my own future.

But how do you know what level IHT will be at after 5 or even 10 years under JC?
And if you are unlucky enough to need care - then you will get caught for deprivations of assets if you do not keep enough to secure your own future...

GreatApe

Chrysalis wrote: »

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

Which is why most reasonable people do not expect taxes to be zero
Which is why the rich pay most of the taxes

However inheritance taxes are a bad way to tax for multiple reasons not least that it mainly hits the stupid. How fair is it to tax the dim for being dim?

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.

No, for instance we would still need heathcare so there would be demand for it and hence supply for that demand. hospitals would not go away they would be private paid for hospitals. Same for teachers and schools and many other public services.

The rest of your posts are nonsense not even deserving a response,
The majority of taxes go to the old in the form of pensions and healthcare for the old.
Not for the police or courts or general administration of the government

I think the system we have is about right,
I do not see a way to greatly cut taxes or a good way to greatly increase taxes

Both parties will realistically only play at the margins.
Potentially korbin could screw things up by nationalizing everything and implementing price floors and ceilings which could cause a recession and a crash in productivity. The sad thing is that the Labor front bench seem to truly believe that 'the evil tories' are screwing everyone but the top 5% and that they can magically make everything so much better. Both parties are realistically trying to help the 95% the tories are trying to do it by maximizing economic output while labors idea is to supposedly tax the top 5% to pay for everything and fix all our ills

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

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).

reducing the IHT to 1997 levels is a massive tax on death. it will incentivise parents to pass on gifts early enough to children. maybe there will be some downsizing going on but the difference in cash raised from this will just go to children who can buy a property with anyway - in effect causing cheaper properties to rise even more...

Chrysalis

economic wrote: »

what about the taxes these people who have built up wealth have paid for 40 years or so? are you saying there should be further taxes on wealth that has already been taxed?

you will probably say that the houses they buy was free gains etc but then why stop at houses? why not taxes investments and savings. after all all that is free gains right?

As always its about getting the balance right to keep everyone happy.

Of course we will never get everyone happy.

My belief is those with more wealth should contribute more and its based on the ability to afford the tax. However I also say that any tax system should ensure wealthy people also stay more wealthy so I am not saying communism before anyone jumps in

Everyone pays tax multiple times.

VAT, NI, income tax, import tax, and all the other stuff.

If it were me making the decisions, I would massively simplify the tax system.

Income tax would be a lot higher than it is now, I consider it the fairest tax in the system.
There would be no VAT
No inheritance tax.
No council tax.
No tax on petrol.
I would perhaps keep NI.
Also some form of tax would need to stay for corporations otherwise business owners would just declare no personal earnings and pay no tax.

The idea been you only pay tax on what you earn, and thats it you done, you have paid your dues.

We got what we got today because income tax is seen as toxic to rise, so instead we get tax by stealth.

wotsthat

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

But how do you know what level IHT will be at after 5 or even 10 years under JC?
And if you are unlucky enough to need care - then you will get caught for deprivations of assets if you do not keep enough to secure your own future...

It doesn't matter who's PM - they'll want my stash.

Getting caught out by deprivation of assets rules is really quite careless. I'm giving away money decades away from (hopefully) requiring care. As if that £6k I gave my son towards his new car is going to be relevant in 35 years.

I won't need care anyway. I'll be checking out - the conversations have already been had.