The EU debate - Part III

I think taxing anyone once they are dead is pure bollocks, especially since, presumably, whoever earned that money has paid tax on it already, so in essence its being taxed twice.
Horse ****.

Again, if they went after the firms who swindle the government out of hundreds of billions of tax money every year, it would offset the amount lost if inheritance tax was abolished.
Just seems unfair that inherited money is essentially taxed twice when there are thousands of corporate A-holes who aren't even paying it once, or at least not their fair share.

 

You pay tax twice on pretty much everything. If you're an employee, you get taxed at source. Now go and buy a pint of beer, a litre of petrol, and they tax you again on the money you just paid tax on.

The 'beauty' of compound taxation!...

 

They're in essence taxing the recipients of the windfall though and not the stiff, but I take your point.

There's shed loads of ways round it btw.

 

I sat and worked out what I'd ultimately had to earn gross in order to pay the stamp duty on my last house move.

I wished I'd not bothered

 

I get your point, but when you pay tax the second time (in the form of VAT or whatnot), you are at least paying for something, you are getting fuel, you are getting goods etc.
Inheritance tax is basically taxing someone because you can.
There is no goods or service being exchanged there, just greed.

 

Inflation for the poor in the UK is considerably higher than the figures for RPI and has been for some time.

 

True!

Back in the '80's when the top rate of tax was still 60%, I tried to work out just how much of my gross income went to the taxman one way or another. I got to a min of 75% and it was maybe higher than that.

So, I do all the work. They get 75% and i get 25% not a bad deal, if you're the taxman!....

 

disgusting isn't it?
The Taxman gets 40% of everything I make, then when I manage to save up and pop my clogs and leave it to my girls, they skim another 40% off the top?
Just doesn't seem fair at all.

 

It'll have probably been more, as don't forget the 11% NI on top of the 60% rate.

Buy a litre of petrol at £1.10 say, and be a top rate tax payer now, and you'll have had to earn about £2.75 gross to pay for it, and you'll have paid circa £2.40 in compound tax on a purchase of £1.10 115% tax

 

Pay your ****ing taxes and stop your moaning you cheap bastards.

 

I have no problem with that. I earn enough to be comfortable, my family will still get a decent chunk when I go and the state will be better able to fund it's needs.

If you have a problem then start giving the extra money away long before you get close to popping your clogs.

 

I just begrudge money being taxed YET again, with all the compounded tax we pay, when some billionaire ****s get away without paying anywhere close to what they should.

 

If you're on PAYE in this country, you pay what's due.

If you're self employed you pay what you can get away with. The further up the chain you look, the less they pay in relation to their genuine total earnings.

What's wrong with our society is the top of the 1% getting away with goosing the tax man.

700 people work for the Govt investigating tax evasion, 2600 work clamping down on benefits cheats. The former is worth infinitely more to the public purse than the latter. Go figure.

 

The country is being governed in a way that makes investing in a house a more or less no risk option available only to those who already moderately wealthy. That means a lot of the gain in value is simply a windfall. I think that should be taxed somehow. The reason I like inheritance tax for this is that I disapprove of inheritance in general - why should a billionaire's son or daughter get rich when his parent dies? Also it would only be due on death so there would be no issue on people having to sell their house to pay it.

 

It's almost as if that's an intentional part of the system, isn't it? How odd...

 

Why should a billionaire be deprived of bequeathing his estate to his children (or anyone or anything else) if that's his choice?

Under the current system the state would get 40%, isn't that enough like?

I think that's the politics of envy personally and I'd not be behind the idea that the state took control of people's entire assets after death. Never right that.

 

I know my view isn't mainstream on this but it nothing to do with envy. I just don't think getting things based on other people's efforts is good for the recipient or society. It would make more sense if the rate of inheritance tax was based on the tax position of the recipient. Say a 50% surcharge on marginal tax rate as that would encourage people to spread their inheritance to poorer people.

 

The current system would see the state get **** all, as a billionaire would avoid paying anything.
Some middle-class bloke that owned a decent sized house and invested well would pay out, though.
That's definitely not right. There's no balance at the moment.

 

I take your point, but I was making the assumption that the billionaire played by the rules

 

Now I know you're joking!