that's a clever political game for Sir Hugh Orde to be playing, no wait, how clever is it really, after all i saw through it thirty seconds............?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Printable View
that's a clever political game for Sir Hugh Orde to be playing, no wait, how clever is it really, after all i saw through it thirty seconds............?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
IN the UK, assets that are gifted to descendants 7 or more years before death are not liable for death duties. So, for those with a lot, it is easier to gift them to one's children. A market rate has to be paid for use - but this then helps give more money to one's descendants. As such, in general it is one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
~:smoking:
Are you saying that if you owned a business, then your employees shouldn't have to pay income tax, because you're paying them with your money? Your families money != your money, just like your employers money != your money.Quote:
it is when it is my money
I wouldn't agree that there is nothing good about inheritance tax, but there's enough wrong with it to persuade me it's a bad thing without having to make up extra reasons. The idea that it shouldn't be taxed because someone else has already paid tax on it is a bit... silly?Quote:
there is nothing good about inheritence tax.
[edit]
I had heard that with property, there is some legal block to this. Even if you gift your house to your heirs seven years before your death, if you keep living in it your heirs still have to pay inheritance tax. Is that right?Quote:
A market rate has to be paid for use
No help if you get hit by a bus the day after handing it over.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
there is a difference between public and private sphere of influence that can be quite clearly be delineated by a legally registered company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
agreed, its a stupid fudge to get around the inequity of inheritance tax, which does nothing to avoid the reality that the fudge works very inefficiently and props up a method of tax that shouldn't be executed in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Not that common, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Best not train to be a pilot - you might sudddenly go blind
Best not to be a truck driver - you might sudfdenly get insulin dependant diabetes...
Life has risks whateer you do.
~:smoking:
That's not the point, inserting an exemption that requires you to survive for seven years so your children don't pay tax on your assetts is insane. It demonstrates that the tax is inherrently unjust.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
or the loophole is unjust.
Here the "lookback" rule is designed to prevent fraud. People will transfer official ownership of their assets to their children in order to qualify for Medicaid (welfare health care) to defray the costs of long term care. The lookback rule prevents folks from being diagnosed as needing long term care and THEN transferring assets so that the government can pay for them. One of the many charming regulations that sprout up around any health program that is not "fee for service."Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am reasonably sure that the seven year rule was established for your inheritance tax for like reasons. The government would not want the terminally ill or those in obviously failing health to sign over their assets in their final hours of life so as to beat the taxman. To do so on your deathbed would be fraudulent, but difficult to punish. :laugh4: I'm reasonably sure The Church would not even classify such a sin as "mortal," and I suspect that your family would be more than willing to do a couple of novenas on your behalf.
Well, if you guys insist on private health insurrence...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I have no idea how the Church feels about inherritence tax, but historically in England it was considered right to do anything to prevent the King and his sherriff from getting their grubby mitts on your assetts, because the King would take as much as he could to increase his own power and the sherriff had very sticky fingers.Quote:
I am reasonably sure that the seven year rule was established for your inheritance tax for like reasons. The government would not want the terminally ill or those in obviously failing health to sign over their assets in their final hours of life so as to beat the taxman. To do so on your deathbed would be fraudulent, but difficult to punish. :laugh4: I'm reasonably sure The Church would not even classify such a sin as "mortal," and I suspect that your family would be more than willing to do a couple of novenas on your behalf.
Inherritence tax is the way the state prevents individuals from amassing power and wealth, it discourages frugality and palnning for the future because you loose you wealth when you die.
I don't think Heaven(or Hell) will accept my direct debit card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It was only in history where possessions were buried along with the dead occupier, because they believed these items followed them to the afterlife.
Written more seriously, the wealth accumulated and earned is from the person who received it in the first place. If they decide they want to pay it all before they die, it is up to them or not. When you die, your possessions don't come with you, they get passed onto others anyway and the "death tax" doesn't affect 90% of the population or so. So those who would need the wealth the most, are unaffected.
Actually, that is wrong. More accurately: "One of the many charming regulations that sprout up around any means tested health program".Quote:
The lookback rule prevents folks from being diagnosed as needing long term care and THEN transferring assets so that the government can pay for them. One of the many charming regulations that sprout up around any health program that is not "fee for service."
In the UK, since Health Care is essentially a 'free service', we don't have that regulation, as people are not means tested in the first place to qualify for such 'aids'. In other-words, the more complicated you make the system, the more complicated the regulation is.
Fair point. I've argued before that the USA's current healthcare system is starting to represent the worst of all systems in combination without truly exercising the advantages of any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You completely missed my point, so let me be explicit. After the Norman Conquest William essentially used inherritence tax to alter the balance of magnate power in his favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
In any case, I think you'll find that inherritence tax affects far more that 10% of the population, you can run foul of it with a big house and a classic car. Should you be forced to sell those just because the tax man wants his cut?
Inherritence tax takes no account of liquidity.
Yes. They're not yours yet - you inherited it. You did nothing for it whatsoever besides being alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
~:smoking:
Re-mortage the house, then use the re-mortage to pay the Taxman his cut. You don't have to sell anything. Either way, it wasn't your property in the first place, it was some one elses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That's the point! :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
So get into dept to pay the tax man? Idiotic, especially in the current climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You are quite correct it wasn't yours, but it was your family's, and you undertook no economic activity to obtain it; it was gifted to you. Morally, it's worse than taxing children for recieving Christmas presents, because at least there no bereavement is involved.
It wouldn't be "going into debt" since the mortage would be on the house you want. Even then, it depends on how much money is going to single claimants as this also affects the rate, and money going to charity isn't taxed at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Morgage is debt, per definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Let me make it simpler, when my Father dies, hopefully at least a few decades from now, I should be able to have his knives, rifles, his motorbike, and anything else he chooses to live me without having to pay the state the privilage of recieving his personnal possessions. If he chose me to give me the house my sister and I gre up in, I shouldn't have to pay for that either.
Inherritence is not an economic activity.
So then your family has more, including land.
A family has one child. They die and pass all holdings onto the one child. He got married and his wife is also a single child. Her family pass on their possessions to her. In the meantime, they bought a place to live.
They have a child. When they die, they pass on the 3 properties (which are rented out) to the child. If he marries a single child their family will soon have a massive portfolio of holdings which drift down the generations.
And so on, and so on.
~:smoking:
That may happen. So what?
If you took out a mortgage on a house you had inherited, you would be making pure profit. Even if you couldn't keep up the payments, the bank could only repossess the house you didn't own in the first place, and you'd be left with a profit of the mortgage money.Quote:
Morgage is debt, per definition.
Only true if the amount of money lent (and never repaid) exceeds the value of the property OR the profits generated by investing those funds exceed the income taxation on the growth thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Yes and? People born into wealth are, if anything, less loathsome than those who make a living getting it out of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
They'll only keep all that if they're not stupid and wasteful, which many inherritors are, that's how you get impoverished nobles.
Only true if you consider the house an assett, assuming it's your ancestral home then taking out a loan to keep it puts your family in dept, and in risk of losing said Seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
In other words, if it belongs to your family, it belongs to you, so loosing someone else's possession is a personal loss if they're from the family. I'm inclined to agree, but I can also see that as soon as you remove the family possessions = my possessions, it all falls apart.Quote:
Only true if you consider the house an assett, assuming it's your ancestral home then taking out a loan to keep it puts your family in dept, and in risk of losing said Seat.
From a legaslistic standpoint I would say "family" has to be defined in terms of direct antecendents, decendants and direct kin (i.e. it should include your aunts and uncles.), yes - basically. My Father holds the dead to his house, but half my stuff is still their and my Mother lives with him. To suggest I will sudenlly have to pay tax for the ownership of a house I, for all practical purposes, can exercise full rights over (I can go there whenever I want, have my own key, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
even with current cuts the UK will still be using a third of tax receipts to service debt-interest by 2040:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...t-tougher.html
think how many gender awareness officers could have been employed if we hadn't doubled the size of the national debt under labour and flown over the edge of the financial crisis wearing concrete boots?
That article is full of the bias we have come to expect from the Torygraph. Let's just look at some of the fine examples of impartial journalism.
The article starts by comparing the UK deficit with other western states, then by comparing national debt with other western states, noting that whilst the UK debt is 80pc of GDP, the US debt is 100pc of GDP.
The article says this is due to "general fiscal irresponsibility" (presumably globally, or at least in western states) and the sub-prime meltdown.
The 13 years of labour in which government debt more than doubled are called "Gordon Brown's reign of fiscal terror"
The predicted 4 to 5 years in which government debt is set to double again is called "George Osborne's recent "austerity budget""
How does this statement match up to the accusation that the government debt is to be blamed on Gordon's mismanagement? How can they possibly say that it was the previous government, not the recession, when the next government's dramatic cut backs are predicted to have no effect? If anything, since we can blame the national debt solely on the government, surely the LibCons are even worse than labour, since under them debt is set to double in only four years compared to thirteen?
Note that I don't disagree with the need for cuts, but the endless witch hunting of anyone who isn't a conservative politician is tiresome.
I agree that the Telegraph is not the best place to look for unbiased reports.
I would say that managing to run a deficit during the boom years has meant that we are in the situation we are currently in. This is aprtly due to dear ol' Gordon single-handedly getting rid of boom and bust - until the Global crisis occurred. Yes, we were lumbered with someone who didn't notice how global things are only after it's wrecked our economy.
I do agree with the cuts. I also feel that many would not have been required if they'd never been employed in the first place. Yes, schools will suffer - do they need new IT systems? Are electronic whiteboards required, or rather decent teachers?
Private Sector has become more productive over the last 10 years.
Public sector has become less productive.
I didn't understand your last paragraph. Could you explain it?
~:smoking:
The telegraph seems to me to implying that the government debt is to be blamed entirely on the previous government (or perhaps I am guilty of reading what I expect to see). How does this match up with their own explanation of the national debt in the US, in Spain and the predicted national debt in the years to come? The financial crisis is the single most important reason for the government debt. Even with a prefect government, I would hazard a guess that we would still be in monumental debt. I will not 'blame' the LibCon government if debt rises in the next two years, since we are in a recession, yet the telegraph seems obsessed with placing all our financial problems at Brown's doorstep, throwing in the sub-prime collapse almost as an afterthought. This is what bugs me.
I hope that's a little clearer.
It seems to me that the recovery of our GDP is far more important to our national debt than any spending decisions the government makes or doesn't make. I am under the impression that the tax revenue gained by relatively small increases in GDP will be comparable to savings made by significant cuts. The prediction that our national debt will double in four years seems to back up that impression.