Willetts targets the older generations

westernpromise

mollycat wrote: »

The Doctor will see you now Mr Arklight.....:rotfl:

The one who gets the £2 is better off. His alternative to working for £2 is death. The guy with the million quid's alternative is to wait for someone else to come along and do the job for less than £2.

Here's a better thought experiment. A guy with a million quid has £600,000 of it taken off him and handed to a thousand people who each get £600, in return for nothing. It's just free money. Who benefits most from that arrangement? Bonus question: will a political party emerge that tells the 1,000 spongers they're entitled to even more than £600 each, applauds them for their saintliness in expecting it, and promises to rob the rich because envy is a virtue?

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

My solution is to properly redistribute wealth by signifcicant increases in inheritance taxes. Taxing estates of everyone at death would enable the state to fund decent care packages for everyone. It would also be redistributive by providing care workers with better incomes and stimulate employment in the sector It would also prevent the lottery that the offspring of some people inherit large sums and those of people who contact degenerative illnesses do not. If you are likely to inherit £100K and get say £80K is that really unfair when you never earned it in the first place? Personally I doubt it will make a difference to most certainly not the taxpayer who is dead.

Your ‘solution’ just results in massive tax avoidance. What are you going to do, stop the crumblies from spending their own money?

But it’s a non starter anyway, because as soon as gens x and y and the millennials get wind of the plan to strip them of ‘their’ money they’ll be up in arms.

Enterprise_1701C

mrginge wrote: »

Your ‘solution’ just results in massive tax avoidance. What are you going to do, stop the crumblies from spending their own money?

But it’s a non starter anyway, because as soon as gens x and y and the millennials get wind of the plan to strip them of ‘their’ money they’ll be up in arms.

As I've said before, if I thought for one minute the government intended to stop my kids inheriting the money we have worked so hard to earn, then we would flog the house and spend the money, wouldn't be hard, a few decent cruises would do it.

The prime reason we work so hard is that we can have a decent standard of living, but the secondary one is so we can pass that money onto the kids to help them when we pass.

I don't know what people expect to happen if they suddenly turn around and say we cant pass the money onto the kids, do they really expect us to let the state take all the money we have earned and paid tax on throughout our lives without a grumble. Wouldn't happen.

As has been said before on this thread, the ones who want the wealth "redistributing" tend to be the ones that don't want to work for a living. They are the ones that want everyone to have a set income, whatever work they do and whether they work or not.

As for all the ones that want MDs to earn a maximum 10x multiplier of the lowest salary earned by anyone in their organisation, precisely what do they think this would do to part time jobs? If the lowest paid person on the books is someone part time working for minimum wage, say 16 hours, and earns £6,000 (no tax on that) or so, do you really think a Managing Director would work all hours that God sends for £60,000 less tax and NI?

ukcarper

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

As I've said before, if I thought for one minute the government intended to stop my kids inheriting the money we have worked so hard to earn, then we would flog the house and spend the money, wouldn't be hard, a few decent cruises would do it.

The prime reason we work so hard is that we can have a decent standard of living, but the secondary one is so we can pass that money onto the kids to help them when we pass.

I don't know what people expect to happen if they suddenly turn around and say we cant pass the money onto the kids, do they really expect us to let the state take all the money we have earned and paid tax on throughout our lives without a grumble. Wouldn't happen.

As has been said before on this thread, the ones who want the wealth "redistributing" tend to be the ones that don't want to work for a living. They are the ones that want everyone to have a set income, whatever work they do and whether they work or not.

As for all the ones that want MDs to earn a maximum 10x multiplier of the lowest salary earned by anyone in their organisation, precisely what do they think this would do to part time jobs? If the lowest paid person on the books is someone part time working for minimum wage, say 16 hours, and earns £6,000 (no tax on that) or so, do you really think a Managing Director would work all hours that God sends for £60,000 less tax and NI?

How many people would though most people money is tied up in their property and they would need to release it. Which could cost more in the long term than any tax depending on level of that tax.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

How many people would though most people money is tied up in their property and they would need to release it. Which could cost more in the long term than any tax depending on level of that tax.

No. It's very easy and cheap.

You can buy a £600k house in Barbados for a total transaction cost of about half what just the stamp duty would cost on a £600k second property in the UK. That's the total cost of purchase - legal fees, land registry, searches, the lot. For half the UK cost. And £600k would get you something rather nice in the warm sun.

Once there you get a £10k personal allowance and income tax above that is around 16%.

So let's see. Stay in UK in the cold and rain and get robbed blind, or retire to Barbados or Bermuda, and leave my children all of their money? Tough call. I think I'll have to live with the guilt of hanging on to money that apparently isn't mine at all really.

The thing about these moral incompetents who think they have more right to my money than I do is that there is no reason for them to wait till I'm dead to steal it. This mansion tax guff that comes up from time to time is an attempt to collect IHT off people who aren't dead yet so it can be squandered now rather than later. It's forcible equity release with the equity taken by the state.

Who in their right mind who has accumulated anything would stay in a country that could be ruled by a cabal of sociopaths who think everything belongs to them and who aren't prepared even to think about reducing expenditure rather than increasing tax?

mrginge

ukcarper wrote: »

How many people would though most people money is tied up in their property and they would need to release it. Which could cost more in the long term than any tax depending on level of that tax.

It’s a simple cost-benefit question. Most people either don’t need to avoid IHT or don’t have enough liability for it to be worth the time or effort of long term planning.

As you decrease the allowance you increase the liability for those already caught and add in a load of new people too.

And then the time and effort become a lot more worthwhile. Boomers would be spending as much as they can and Gen Xers will suddenly be up to their necks in tax planning.

Moby

BobQ wrote: »

I tend to agree, although not all boomers are as well off as the stereotype boomer. Another factor is that so many boomers (and I am one) simply do not realise the trade off between generations. They get that they are better off than they ever imagined but do not associate it with the problems of the younger generation.



You are right that boomers are unlikely to vote to make themselves poorer and they are a growing proportion of the population.

My solution is to properly redistribute wealth by signifcicant increases in inheritance taxes. Taxing estates of everyone at death would enable the state to fund decent care packages for everyone. It would also be redistributive by providing care workers with better incomes and stimulate employment in the sector It would also prevent the lottery that the offspring of some people inherit large sums and those of people who contact degenerative illnesses do not. If you are likely to inherit £100K and get say £80K is that really unfair when you never earned it in the first place? Personally I doubt it will make a difference to most certainly not the taxpayer who is dead.

Monevator makes the same point and we have to find a solution for the impending issue of caring for the elderly. We are living longer and the population contributing to the tax base is shrinking :- http://monevator.com/weekend-reading-should-inheritance-tax-be-100/

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

No. It's very easy and cheap.

You can buy a £600k house in Barbados for a total transaction cost of about half what just the stamp duty would cost on a £600k second property in the UK. That's the total cost of purchase - legal fees, land registry, searches, the lot. For half the UK cost. And £600k would get you something rather nice in the warm sun.

Once there you get a £10k personal allowance and income tax above that is around 16%.

So let's see. Stay in UK in the cold and rain and get robbed blind, or retire to Barbados or Bermuda, and leave my children all of their money? Tough call. I think I'll have to live with the guilt of hanging on to money that apparently isn't mine at all really.

The thing about these moral incompetents who think they have more right to my money than I do is that there is no reason for them to wait till I'm dead to steal it. This mansion tax guff that comes up from time to time is an attempt to collect IHT off people who aren't dead yet so it can be squandered now rather than later. It's forcible equity release with the equity taken by the state.

Who in their right mind who has accumulated anything would stay in a country that could be ruled by a cabal of sociopaths who think everything belongs to them and who aren't prepared even to think about reducing expenditure rather than increasing tax?

But that's not how the majority behave, I'm not saying they should do just that although people would complain if the level was set correctly they would get away with it.

ukcarper

mrginge wrote: »

It’s a simple cost-benefit question. Most people either don’t need to avoid IHT or don’t have enough liability for it to be worth the time or effort of long term planning.

As you decrease the allowance you increase the liability for those already caught and add in a load of new people too.

And then the time and effort become a lot more worthwhile. Boomers would be spending as much as they can and Gen Xers will suddenly be up to their necks in tax planning.

As I said it depends on how easy it is to access your capital and the level it was set at.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

But that's not how the majority behave

Give it time. Attack them with more taxes and see what happens.

It's a parent's duty to their children to steward the family's capital. It is grossly selfish to place or leave it in harm's way, such as the harm wreaked by Labour chancellors.