-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF: General election thread of LibCon Coalitionage
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
- Status
brain_stew
Member
blazinglord said:
Everything. Those in receipt have done bugger all for it, and don't deserve it anymore than anyone else. Having wealthy parents will have already given them a much better and privileged start in life so that they've had a better chance than most to make a living on their own. Nothing makes them more deserving of that cash than anyone else (in most cases the opposite is probably the case). If I ever do amass a fortune I have no intention to pass it on to one or two people that don't need it.
Using average house prices in Newcastle is a horrible way to judge the wealth of the average joe in the north east. Newcastle itself is much more wealthy than the rest of the region and the figures are distorted by areas like Jesmond and Gosforth that couldn't be further away from your average north east former mining town.
scotcheggz
Member
Holy shit I'm just watching the Paxman Vs Cameron interview, this has made Cameron look really ropey to the general electorate IMO.
brain_stew
Member
blazinglord said:
Stupidity like this doesn't really deserve a response but I'll bite..............a little. Ever heard of Nissan? Well they're based in Sunderland and its the most efficient car plant in the entire EU. People can't work if there's not the jobs there for them, and after the last Tory government decimated all industry in the region it takes time to replace those jobs. How does specifically targeting the region for more job cuts help the problems of unemployment exactly?
The Tories won't commit to a comprehensive high speed rail network in their manifesto. If you want the north east to attract private sector jobs you don't go and put projects like that at risk. Currently it takes less time to get to Paris from London than it does to get to Newcastle, I surely don't have to explain how completely ridiculous that is?
brain_stew
Member
Kowak said:
The idea is so that it is redistributed throughout society. Though I agree, that's not ideal but that's why you have the option to give your estate to any charity and not be taxed for doing so. Your able to give it to any worthy and just cause, two lucky kids that have lived a privileged life don't fall into that category though, and nor should they.
brain_stew
Member
Kowak said:
All that does is increase inequality in society though. The children of wealthy parents almost certainly have had as good a start in life as anyone, its upto them to earn their living after being given every chance to do so. If people are forever hereditarily wealthy , then wealth will never be properly distributed throughout society. Why should someone that is talented and hard working throughout their life always live in poverty compared to someone that has never lifted a finger in their life?
Its the one significant tax cut that the the Tories have put forward so far and its solely for the benefit of the wealthy. When so many are desperate for jobs why should aristocrats be getting tax breaks?
brain_stew said:
if someone is talented and hard working then I doubt they would be in poverty. you are also stereotyping anyone who comes from money as being lazy and not doing anything. there are those who do live the playboy lifestyle, but most work.
If I earn a fortune I would to know that my wealth has gone to the people I have worked so hard to achieve it for. people are already taxed enough as it is on earnings and other stuff that their is enough redistribution of wealth as it already is.
Alright, I'll bite. There's social commentary and there's public policy. Both of you are making valid points and showing holes in the other's points. Tax breaks on the rich in the midst of little or no growth economy wise, with *perhaps* £160 odd billion deficit, and in danger of a double dip reccession, I think it is bad policy, if you are on the other hand trying to save money by *apparently* cutting 'front line' spending'.
It may be more fair for the wealthy, but I personally feel that it's the easiest burden to lift, unfair as it maybe to the rich. And understandbly it must be hard to hand over half of what you earn.
It may be more fair for the wealthy, but I personally feel that it's the easiest burden to lift, unfair as it maybe to the rich. And understandbly it must be hard to hand over half of what you earn.
brain_stew said:
Right my Gran lives not in the best but neither the worst part of Newcastle. Theres a builder, built his business up from scratch and built an extension on his house - with the help of his mates its put the value into the eligibility for inherritance tax, he wants to leave the house to his kids. So under your view these 'wealthy parents' shouldn't be allowed to do it cos its unfair on the rest of society?
brain_stew
Member
Linkified said:
He'll still be able to leave a very significant sum, tax free, to his children under the current system. You're only taxed on the parts of your estate above the threshold, so in an edge case like that, the inheritance tax he'd have to pay would be very insignificant.
Honestly, ideologically this is something I'm firmly behind, and I understand why people take the opposite stance, and anything I say is unlikely to sway them. Using edge cases isn't a good way to go about this, and I express my sympathy but my point is that after the worst recession in over 50 years, now is not the time to be giving tax breaks to the top 10% of society. If tax cuts are to come from anywhere its just about the last place it should be coming from atm. VAT is just about the most disproportionate tax going and it is very strongly predicted that if a Conservative government do need to raise taxes anywhere to cover the defict this is the one area it will come from. David Cameron couldn't even guarantee no VAT rise within the first 6 months of government when pressed by Paxman. This does not strike me as the sorts of policies that are going to counter inequality and help out those hardest hit by the recession.
Edit: Fwiw, a close member of my own family would probably benefit from this policy (on a smaller scale, admittedly) as well and that may mean that I financially benefit in the future (as they don't have any children) because of it but despite that it does in no way change my view on the matter.
brain_stew said:
Well I would most likely predct if the conservative government got into power they would have an emergency EU meeting to get it passed for at least the next year no country to pay anything into the system just until we are starting to climb out of the pit of recession.
Also going back to your point on that a cut in inherritance tax would benefit the top 10%, if anyone of us was in the top 10% we would want it to be cut.
brain_stew
Member
Linkified said:
That's a pretty pessimistic view. I can say with pretty strong certainty that I'd still oppose it even if it would benefit me financially. Obviously, its easy to say that when it doesn't directly affect me of course.
scotcheggz
Member
Linkified said:
Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I'd like to hope that, I myself, personally would still retain my core values and not become a selfish prick due to money.
If you are in the top 10% then you can afford to give a little back to the people and it shouldn't hurt to do so. "Me and mine" is a horrible attitude.
Anyone notice that Independent ad has been updated to include a bit about Lib Dem Arms trade links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDw-1bYatIs
You can all thank Gordon Brown for high house prices which was the reason for the Northern Rock run in August 2007 and the subsequent "credit crunch".
Toxic loans were the by-products of liar loans whereby people lied about their incomes to get banks and building societies to approve them larger mortgages. This bid up prices of properties across the UK and the end result you saw as the Northern Rock bank run in Aug '07 followed by tightened lending from banks due to damaged balance sheets and price drops of around 20% from end 2007 to March 2009.
What did Gordon Brown say in 1997?
I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.
What did he do? In 2003 he changed the official measure of inflation from RPI which included house prices to the CPI which didn't include house prices and cut interest rates to low levels. This along with cheap credit and the securitisation market caused the biggest house price boom (1997-2007) in the UK housing market history and you have Gordon Brown to thank for that.
Don't you think its unfair that the difficulty of buying a house in the UK is mainly due to your date of birth?
Even worse is that to sustain the housing bubble after the roughly 20% fall from end-2007 to March 2009 the Bank of England cut base interest rates to a 300 year historical low of 0.5% and pumped up the deficit to a massive £167bln and the national debt to over £600bn!
Toxic loans were the by-products of liar loans whereby people lied about their incomes to get banks and building societies to approve them larger mortgages. This bid up prices of properties across the UK and the end result you saw as the Northern Rock bank run in Aug '07 followed by tightened lending from banks due to damaged balance sheets and price drops of around 20% from end 2007 to March 2009.
What did Gordon Brown say in 1997?
I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.
What did he do? In 2003 he changed the official measure of inflation from RPI which included house prices to the CPI which didn't include house prices and cut interest rates to low levels. This along with cheap credit and the securitisation market caused the biggest house price boom (1997-2007) in the UK housing market history and you have Gordon Brown to thank for that.
Don't you think its unfair that the difficulty of buying a house in the UK is mainly due to your date of birth?
Even worse is that to sustain the housing bubble after the roughly 20% fall from end-2007 to March 2009 the Bank of England cut base interest rates to a 300 year historical low of 0.5% and pumped up the deficit to a massive £167bln and the national debt to over £600bn!
That's quite a tenuous link you've built up between rising mortgages and the credit crunch. It's completely missing the point to focus on the fact that larger (or more) mortgages had to be taken out to finance the inflation in the housing sector, the point is people were not properly income assessed and could not repay. Why does it matter what they were taking the loan for if they couldn't repay it anyway? And for some reason if houses were cheaper these people who lied about their income wouldn't? I'm sorry but all of that is BS. Even in areas of the US where house prices were stable or falling the exact same thing happened, hell it happened to a much larger extent than the UK.Eiji said:
The problem was with the banking sector regulation. 99% of the problems we've had recently are the direct result of this, and yes Brown was the one who helped deregulate and you can blame him for that. But before the crisis hit the Conservatives were pushing for even less regulation than we have now, could you imagine how much worse it could've been?
I'm not sure about your final point regarding the Bank of England, the base interest rate is low now to encourage lending but it's mostly aimed at businesses, to increase spending and spur the economy out of its rut. I don't see the issue with it.
Linkified said:
Are you seriously saying that Conservatives would pass a resolution to remove VAT? Do you have ANY IDEA how much debt that would take the EU into, especially when the Conservatives are the only party really gunning to cut the deficit?
Linkified said:
Yeah, screw poor people, the rich deserve to pay far less of their income as a proportion than them!
blazinglord
Member
It is not for the state to start creating unnecessary jobs or to prop up unprofitable industries. Let the market decide what labour is needed.brain_stew said:
I was under the impression that the Tories do support a high speed rail - the only issue between the two main parties is where the line should run and who should fund it.
Redistribution isn't a human right, nor is it particularly natural. Individuals need incentives to work and establish themselves, rewarding people to use their talent in a productive manner will ultimately benefit the lower sections of society anyway. I know 'trickle-down economics' isn't in vogue right now, but I have yet to see anything of contributory value come from those on benefits other than the continual supply of next generation's cheap labour. Harsh, but true.Dougald said:
Before I get mauled for being an inhumane capitalist - I'm not advocating completely cutting people off, but I do think that the current welfare system is too distorted. Like what is this rubbish about people getting more money on welfare than they would if they got a job on low income? There has been far too much shift towards state dependence and away from what the welfare state originally existed for - to help people meet the basic costs of living. I think a better way to reform the current system would be to cut benefits and increase minimum wage - give people an incentive to go out and earn a living.
Empty said:
This is bullshit. Total bullshit. My grandparents came over from Cyprus in the 1960s, worked their fingers to the bone and managed to afford a nice semi-detached house in West London after living for years in a cramped flat with another family. My parents got into financial trouble and declared bankruptcy, lost their own house, and had to move in with my grandparents. Are you saying it is fair, that 40% of this house's value (above threshold), should be given to the state upon my grandparents death? That we would have to move out and be left homeless? Is that really the intended purpose of the inheritance tax?
Can you really not see the difference between a situation like that and the upper class who have multiple houses worth millions of pounds? As it is now, inheritance tax punishes the hard working lower-middle classes and matters absolutely fuck-all to the truly wealthy. A fair inheritance tax would apply only to those owning more than one house, and have a threshold more in line with current house prices.
As far as I know, 40% is the highest tax band, so it's impossible to have an estate that you'd have to pay 40% tax on.Ushojax said:
If it is worth "slighty more" than the current threshold as you say at something like £350,000 for instance, the tax payment would be £10,000, not £175,0000.
Parl said:
Yeah, I didn't phrase that well at all, apologies. The house is worth just over £700,000 (I understand that the joint tax threshold is around £600,000) , so they would pay around £40,000 in tax. Where the fuck is that supposed to come from?
£700,000 is a lot. Joint tax threshold is £650,000, so tax payable is roughly £20,000.Ushojax said:
Your grandparents can legally give your parents £12,000 tax free in one year, then £6,000 for each year thereafter. So 4 years, and your grandparents own 93% of it and your parents have been given 7%. This would create 0% inheritance tax.
To answer your question... (it wasn't directed at me, but no matter)
You won't be left homeless, even with a lower threshold, you'd wind up in a lower value house, but one that's still puts you in that top 5% quite comfortably. Most people don't even get there through working hard, so I'd feel very priviledged that the tax system would allow me to only pay £10,000 on such a huge, effortless increase in wealth.
Not to insult your parents's fortunate situation on the matter, as most reasonable people would accept it, myself included. I'm not in that situation though unfortunately. If I want to get a house like that, it certainly won't be for free.
blazinglord
Member
Do you not see that Ushojax's family has earned their money from scratch and bought their house with money that was already taxed! Why do other people who haven't done anything deserve to benefit from the toil of Ushojax's family?Parl said:
blazinglord
Member
Why not raise minimum wage and let the poor independently earn their own living and take pride in their earned money? State handouts is not the answer.Sir Fragula said:
I've been following the election and something I've noticed is really disconcerting regarding the Conservative 'assault' on the Lib Dems. They're arguing that a hung parliament would be totally disastrous because nothing would get done. But that is total nonsense, Scotland is run by a non-majority government and things get done there. It just seems like Cameron is saying: 'I'm going to be a dick and oppose Clegg and Brown because I don't like their parties. Forget if I agree with the policy or not.'
If it is a hung parliament then they will HAVE to work together, he's missing the point.
If it is a hung parliament then they will HAVE to work together, he's missing the point.
killer_clank
Member
Indeed. The only real funny time about getting bills passed in Scotland is the budget, which always goes through with a couple of concessions, and of course the independence referendum bill, which won't get through whilst the SNP don't have a majority.
The welfare system is necessary to prevent entrenched povety.blazinglord said:
I think the argument that people are making here is that those who work hard on lower incomes should pay income tax on money they work hard for, but those who get a big house for free, shouldn't pay a penny on it because they deserve it. Mansion handouts are not the answer.
I'm all for wanting to give your offspring the efforts of your good work (or the efforts or exploits of somebody on your family free at least), but it makes no sense to claim that this is more special than the earnings made by the average hard-worker. These are taxed, and so they should be because taxes are necessary.
I'm all for a balance between not discourage hard-work, and not discouraging investment into the UK economy.. but also, and perhaps more important, is the notion that the main fact by which people obtain wealth be by hard work, or good ideas, adding value, not because of background, no because your parent's could afford a better school, or because you don't live in a really crap town with nearly no jobs.
I support both of these idealogies, because society wouldn't thrive if discouraged from getting rich with hugely high taxes at the top, or discourage from investing in the UK with high taxes on returns, but there'd be a constantly growing inequality without welfare, progressive taxes, and other means of encouraging social mobility.
travisbickle
Member
Most rich people are fucking arseholes but some have good ideologies.
Equally, if any one of the 10% at the top ended up with a poor education because of their background, and lived in a town with few jobs and high unemployment, with a society with growing inequality, they'd support the fact a family who inherits a house for free, doing zero work of their own, would get a tax of £32,000 on £800,000 said luxury house.Linkified said:
That's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You say the poor should independently earn their own money, yet you're advocating getting rid of a tax that would give away money without earning or working for it.blazinglord said:
Inheritance tax is a good thing. I know the perspective that the money and property should stay in the family (and it mostly does), but if you're from a rich family then you've most likely already benefited from being in a better house, neighbourhood, health, and better education. This puts the rich on a better footing immediately. Taxing inheritance gives an opportunity to the poor to get a better footing in life or at least live a little bit more comfortably.
travisbickle
Member
Ushojax said:
Like mentioned you would pay around £20,000 in tax. And to be perfectly honest, if you can't afford that you can't afford to be ruled by a tory government.
The tories have done a great job of making people who have a house over the threshold believe they are in the wealthy minority that the Labour and Lib Dem governments supposedly hate. You're not, you're still in the part of society that benefits from better public spending on schools, hospitals, policing, all public services...and you're still in the percentage that the Tory and affluent people despise.
Dougald said:
Nope what i'm saying is that instead of paying all of the £45million to Europe, we instead negotiate and contribute £22.5 million to Europe and use the other £22.5million to fix the country. Therefore we don't have to cut VAT or raise VAT.
Yes but the thing is if you keep going into the job market and redistributing the wealth and income, therefore you would end up with a supermarket cashier earning the same as secondary school teacher - which is wrong. And then as a scoiety why would anyone want to be anything other than a cupermarket cashier.
Chinner said:
Assuming the taxes actually flow to the poor. Which is being very naive when it comes to governments
(Honestly, you'd have a far greater chance of them voluntarily donating their inheritance rather than seeing the light of day through government beauracracy)I don't think Murdoch's press is as bad as you have over there, at least not here in Australia. We're getting quite unbiased reporting; The Australian did an article on how Nick Clegg's popularity is still the highest based on the average of most polls and how he's very likely to decide government.
They also published a not-so-flattering excerpt from Littlejohn's book about New Labour. Holy shit, did Tony Blair really regulate that salt shakers must have 5 holes??
Dabookerman
Member
gerg said:
gobsmacked. Milliband was campaigning and some guy said he wouldn't vote Labour due to Iraq. He replied:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/apr/23/david-miliband-interview-labour
Don't they get it? Thousands of people are dead. Thousands more will die. Poor little diddums! People are saying mean things to us due to our little flirtation with mass-murder.
I'm not going to vote for Labour until every member in that party who voted in favour of the war is dead from old age.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/apr/23/david-miliband-interview-labour
Don't they get it? Thousands of people are dead. Thousands more will die. Poor little diddums! People are saying mean things to us due to our little flirtation with mass-murder.
I'm not going to vote for Labour until every member in that party who voted in favour of the war is dead from old age.
Zenith said:
Labour would of had Iraq as a non issue, if each soldier had the right equipment, and had better controlled the message - in the early days they controlled the message tightly, once the evidence came back to that we did not have the right resources then the message became tangled and has made it a decision in the election.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked