A Millennial Speaks out

triathlon

GreatApe wrote: »

It refrained from putting a bullet in your head so clearly you owe the state big time

Is this sort of rhetoric allowed on here?

triathlon

Moby wrote: »

.......and why do people like you think that people who want to change property law are after your dosh? See it this way..... the concept of what ownership means can change. Just like we no longer have medieval lords asserting droit du seigneur. Hard to grasp for many on here I know. Monevator explains it for you.......
http://monevator.com/weekend-reading-should-inheritance-tax-be-100/


Change is coming......its only a matter of time........
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value

I am going to get an inheritance and my children may will get a far bigger one, but the moment I see any one of them making lifestyle choices which involves taking the brakes off because of what they know or think is coming I will put the fear of God in them

If anyone of them puts their life and soul into a project or business I will go out of my way to help them succeed.

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

In this country we have concentrated on taxing income not capital. That simply means in the long term capital tends to stay in the same hands through the generations through inheritance.The wealthiest pensioners are those who themselves inherited most. But for the next generation that effect will grow. Some 90% of inherited wealth will go to half the next generation. Inheritance tax can be a significant leveller, helping to break up ancestral accumulations of wealth. We have a State which is for all of us and the money for it has to come from somewhere. I believe it’s better to tax unearned windfalls from the dead more heavily and the earnings of the living and productive less heavily.

They have been earned by the majority of people most people’s wealth is thier property and property ownership increased dramatically in 50s and 60s so the number of older people receiving an inheritance is lower than younger people who will have received one. I have made a lot of sacrifices to get my house and don’t see why I should be tax on what I have made while other people who have not should pay less. Home ownership in the over 50s is 70% so more than 50% will receive an inheritance.

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

Exactly....money gives you choices/options and power to control your own life. I paid off my mortgage a few years ago....the manager looking over my shoulder doesn't seem to frighten me in quite the same way now!;)

The point is... all else being equal....would you rather be rich or poor!

I agree that it easier to be happy if you have money but the threshold is quite low in so much that if you can have somewhere to live and enough food any more money does not necessarily make you happier. I took early retirement in my 50s and my income dropped considerably but I was lot happier.

Happiness is a frame of mind, we were far from well of when I was being brought up lived in worse accommodation than anybody is expected to live in now and my parents struggled, but our neighbours who were no better off than us we great and there was a good community spirit and I had a happy childhood and my mum always said they were the best times of her life.

triathlon

Moby wrote: »

No....... Andrew personally benefits no more than anyone else. He's pointing out inheritance tax is a good wealth redistribution tool and he's right.

I have no problem being liked or disliked for pointing out why so many apple using, holiday taking , weekend partying, working less than 45 hour whining renter can never get on the property ladder deserve to be where they are in life.

But I do have issues with a scraggy kid on a violent run down council estate for example who is raised by dreggs who are his parents in name only, who have gone through life treating the welfare system as their God given right. If that kid as decided to educate himself, work his socks off and aspires to get away where he is, if spoilt kids getting inheritances is yet another obstacle to those type of people then yes it should be addressed in someway.

I am quite happy calling the new breed lazy, delusional and self entitled, which so many of them are, but you can only say that if there are options for them out there and other better paths, inheritance in my opinion has a side that I am not happy about.

And no, I don't want to just hand over my money to a dogs home when I peg it, but it's not that clear cut, that's all I am saying

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

In this country we have concentrated on taxing income not capital. That simply means in the long term capital tends to stay in the same hands through the generations through inheritance.The wealthiest pensioners are those who themselves inherited most. But for the next generation that effect will grow. Some 90% of inherited wealth will go to half the next generation. Inheritance tax can be a significant leveller, helping to break up ancestral accumulations of wealth. We have a State which is for all of us and the money for it has to come from somewhere. I believe it’s better to tax unearned windfalls from the dead more heavily and the earnings of the living and productive less heavily.

The government already controls about 45% of the economy how much more do you think is desirable and how much more is functional?

If labor does nationilise rail energy water etc we might be headed towards 50-55% of the economy in the governments hands. How on earth do you imagine all that plus additional wealth taxes would be possible?

Wealth taxes also distort economic activity more than income taxes.

The big groups of wealth are

Cash savings (bank accounts). You can't really tax that for obvious reasons.

Shares and stocks. These already have a 20% capital gains tax and 37.5% dividend tax. If you try to add a wealth tax too on top of this its going to drove more people out of the country. Also the way shares work is they hold their value if the shareholders are not selling the shares. If you had for example a 1% annual wealth tax that would result in many owners needing to sell 1% of their share holdings resulting in lower share prices or more likely over time we would get less UK share holders and more foreign holders

Property. Already a 10% stamp duty. If you add an annual property tax of say 1% a year you would crash prices in the expensive areas. This means less stamp duty collected.

The right in politics wants to tax for functionality the loony hard left wants to tax to spite the rich even if it means shooting yourself in the foot

andrewf75

GreatApe wrote: »

The right in politics wants to tax for functionality the loony hard left wants to tax to spite the rich even if it means shooting yourself in the foot

That’s quite a ridiculously biased statement. There is a gradual scale from left to right and we all have our opinion of where the balance should be. Why are those who propose a slight shift to the left (in a country well to the right globally!) labelled as “loony hard left”? Presumably using that logic you call anyone who wants to reduce immigration a far right racist?

And it is absolutely not about spite, just making things a bit fairer.

economic

andrewf75 wrote: »

That’s quite a ridiculously biased statement. There is a gradual scale from left to right and we all have our opinion of where the balance should be. Why are those who propose a slight shift to the left (in a country well to the right globally!) labelled as “loony hard left”? Presumably using that logic you call anyone who wants to reduce immigration a far right racist?

And it is absolutely not about spite, just making things a bit fairer.

It is clear that Moby is far left.

How do you define fair? Fairness is highly subjective.

Is it fair for a person with a IQ of 80 on minimum wage to receive a % of wealth from a person with a 100 IQ who has worked hard and built up quite a bit of wealth so he can pass onto his children?

andrewf75

economic wrote: »

It is clear that Moby is far left.

How do you define fair? Fairness is highly subjective.

Not a regular poster here so I don’t know his views, but it seems to me that typically anyone expressing views slightly to the left is portrayed as extreme.

michaels

andrewf75 wrote: »

That’s quite a ridiculously biased statement. There is a gradual scale from left to right and we all have our opinion of where the balance should be. Why are those who propose a slight shift to the left (in a country well to the right globally!) labelled as “loony hard left”? Presumably using that logic you call anyone who wants to reduce immigration a far right racist?

And it is absolutely not about spite, just making things a bit fairer.

But the govt already spends 45% of GDP and runs a larger deficit (=more future taxation) despite contracting out to the private sector what is state activity in many other countries - which are these other 'further to the left' countries that have an even larger share of govt in GDP?