Stamp Duty

[Mr Kobayashi]

Stamp duty is not as abhorrent as Death (inheritance) tax, why the fuck any should have to pay tax for dying is beyond me, all that they bought etc has already had tax paid on it, I don’t care if your rich or poor, no one should pay tax on dying.

You don't, your beneficiaries do.

Also, as it stands your beneficiaries won't be paying much inheritance tax if any.

 

[Vic]

This government doesn’t care what we think. That’s been obvious for years.

What metric would you use to suggest whether the public are angry or not?

50% poll for Labour would say a lot.

 

[Vic]

Stamp duty is not as abhorrent as Death (inheritance) tax, why the fuck any should have to pay tax for dying is beyond me, all that they bought etc has already had tax paid on it, I don’t care if your rich or poor, no one should pay tax on dying.

Why is inherited wealth a good thing?

 

[Blue Maverick]

Why is inherited wealth a good thing?

Why isn’t it, if someone works hard to provide for their family and pay their taxes to do that, why tax again?

 

[Kompany Car]

Stamp duty is not as abhorrent as Death (inheritance) tax, why the fuck any should have to pay tax for dying is beyond me, all that they bought etc has already had tax paid on it, I don’t care if your rich or poor, no one should pay tax on dying.

Under current rules the threshold is effectively £1m.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance-tax/inheritance-tax-property-changes-aSr774L6FUfp

People with net worths more than this are likely to have tax efficient arrangements in place to limit their children’s liability.

If you want to avoid stamp duty, register a business in a tax haven, use that business to purchase the property and then rent the property from the company.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Under current rules the threshold is effectively £1m.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance-tax/inheritance-tax-property-changes-aSr774L6FUfp

People with net worths more than this are likely to have tax efficient arrangements in place to limit their children’s liability.

If you want to avoid stamp duty, register a business in a tax haven, use that business to purchase the property and then rent the property from the company.

I hope they do, I just think taxing people all their lives and then at the end is disgusting, whether you have a £1 or a billion.

 

[inbetween]

Why is inherited wealth a good thing?

Why do you need to steal people's efforts and rewards to fund the completely arbitrary political disaster project that is the nation state?

Money is earnt, tax is paid, things are bought with what remains, why is that still not enough? Is it the amount of tax paid that is the problem or is it the fault of the state and its mismanagement of the tax that has been paid?

 

[BobKowalski]

Why do you need to steal people's efforts and rewards to fund the completely arbitrary political disaster project that is the nation state?

Money is earnt, tax is paid, things are bought with what remains, why is that still not enough? Is it the amount of tax paid that is the problem or is it the fault of the state and its mismanagement of the tax that has been paid?

It circulates money back into the system. Untaxed inherited wealth stagnates the system. If one person inherits a billion quid then it largely justs sits there doing nothing. If you taxed that at 50% and gave everyone a £100 Christmas tax rebate then that portion of the half billion would get circulated into the economy.

Furthermore, you are not ‘stealing’ it from the person who made the billion. You are taxing the people who get to inherit the billion for basically doing fuck all. And they still get half a billion.

In short, too much wealth concentrated in too few hands is bad economic practice. It is also the premise of every dystopian work of fiction.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Why do you need to steal people's efforts and rewards to fund the completely arbitrary political disaster project that is the nation state?

I wouldn't have thought Peter Thiel posted on here.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

In short, too much wealth concentrated in too few hands is bad economic practice. It is also the premise of every dystopian work of fiction.

Pretty much. We are saving the rich and their children from themselves.

Rich, cosetted people invariably become entitled and lazy and waste whatever talents or intellect they possess. They become more insular, more inbred and less curious about the world outside their bubble.

 

[BobKowalski]

Pretty much. We are saving the rich and their children from themselves.

Rich, cosetted people invariably become entitled and lazy and waste whatever talents or intellect they possess. They become more insular, more inbred and less curious about the world outside their bubble.

There are quite a few celebrities and wealthy people who don’t intend to pass on the bulk of their wealth. Bill Gates, Elton John, Warren Buffet, Sting and so on. Not that their kids will be on the breadline exactly, but they view passing on too much would be detrimental.

 

[Vic]

Pretty much. We are saving the rich and their children from themselves.

Rich, cosetted people invariably become entitled and lazy and waste whatever talents or intellect they possess. They become more insular, more inbred and less curious about the world outside their bubble.

Hey, this isn't the Boris Johnson thread.

 

[inbetween]

It circulates money back into the system. Untaxed inherited wealth stagnates the system. If one person inherits a billion quid then it largely justs sits there doing nothing. If you taxed that at 50% and gave everyone a £100 Christmas tax rebate then that portion of the half billion would get circulated into the economy.

Furthermore, you are not ‘stealing’ it from the person who made the billion. You are taxing the people who get to inherit the billion for basically doing fuck all. And they still get half a billion.

In short, too much wealth concentrated in too few hands is bad economic practice. It is also the premise of every dystopian work of fiction.

That concentration of wealth comes from the simple fact that wealth has been created in the first place and that means far more than you think. It doesn't mean that some pirate has nicked £1bn and is sat in his mansion. The existence of that wealth stands for jobs and tax that has already been due and paid.

It's morally wrong that the state can just take even more in death just because you've created something that is deemed of enough value. Why don't you make it fair and take a portion of everybodys assets when they die because that's the fair and socialist way isn't it? I thought the pillar of socialism was equity and fairness?

As I've said a few times on this thread already, we currently pay £120bn per year just towards debt interest repayments. The amount of tax that you could ever raise is never ever going to be enough. It will never cover up for the reality that is years of continued waste and mismanagement by governments and politicians.

Either way, if rich people are going to be taxed this heavily then they'll move their assets and cash elsewhere, and then you have zero tax, zero jobs and we're all worse off.

 

[inbetween]

There are quite a few celebrities and wealthy people who don’t intend to pass on the bulk of their wealth. Bill Gates, Elton John, Warren Buffet, Sting and so on. Not that their kids will be on the breadline exactly, but they view passing on too much would be detrimental.

These guys are asset rich and it's extremely difficult to tax assets such as company stock. What they do pass on will be whatever's left after years of running a company and maybe if they sell stock but then they'll have to pay whatever tax is due.

Elon Musk paid the single biggest individual tax payment in US history let's not forget and is the US any better off for it? Do they suddenly have free healthcare? No, it was probably used to buy a few bombs for Ukraine.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

It's morally wrong that the state can just take even more in death just because you've created something that is deemed of enough value

Why?

Why is it more moral to tax earnings?

Seems to me that when you've no more use for it ('cos you're 6 feet under) is far and away the *most* moral time to tax someone.

 

[BrianW]

I'm sure you will find statistics out there proving that the most contented societies are those with a relatively small gap between rich and poor.

The UK is the direct opposite of this. On the one hand, you have people working three jobs and unable to feed and house themselves adequately. On the other, you see people with so much money they literally do not know what to do with it.

All else apart, this is a recipe for social chaos and ultimately revolution, with a horrid degree of violence and disorder along the path.

We simply cannot afford the ultra-rich, and especially we cannot afford the many ultra-rich tax dodgers. What is needed is a taxation system that brings the wealth gap to the normal level for a European country. If that means some people fuck off to Monaco, so be it.

(We need to adopt the USA system of income tax. All citizens pay, and if you don't want to, then, like Boris Johnson did, you must renounce your citizenship and give up your passport and your vote.)

 

[BobKowalski]

That concentration of wealth comes from the simple fact that wealth has been created in the first place and that means far more than you think. It doesn't mean that some pirate has nicked £1bn and is sat in his mansion. The existence of that wealth stands for jobs and tax that has already been due and paid.

It's morally wrong that the state can just take even more in death just because you've created something that is deemed of enough value. Why don't you make it fair and take a portion of everybodys assets when they die because that's the fair and socialist way isn't it? I thought the pillar of socialism was equity and fairness?

As I've said a few times on this thread already, we currently pay £120bn per year just towards debt interest repayments. The amount of tax that you could ever raise is never ever going to be enough. It will never cover up for the reality that is years of continued waste and mismanagement by governments and politicians.

Either way, if rich people are going to be taxed this heavily then they'll move their assets and cash elsewhere, and then you have zero tax, zero jobs and we're all worse off.

Not sure how we got onto pirates, but back to the matter in hand. Bottom line, you can tax rich people and can definitely tax really rich people. Jobs won’t disappear overnight and we won’t all be living in cardboard boxes - especially the producers of cardboard boxes because they would be quids in.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but a lot of wealth is produced on the back of other peoples efforts and they too should be allowed to share in that wealth (decent pay, benefits etc) and they should see that everyone fairly contributes to the society that we all live in. You may bemoan the State and its inefficiencies yet the billionaire profits from the State in terms of security, infrastructure, educated and healthy labour force etc and without the State the billionaire may not have his or her billions so it is not unreasonable to expect to pay something back and maybe a little more on top in recognition of the benefits the State provides.

 

[BobKowalski]

These guys are asset rich and it's extremely difficult to tax assets such as company stock. What they do pass on will be whatever's left after years of running a company and maybe if they sell stock but then they'll have to pay whatever tax is due.

Elon Musk paid the single biggest individual tax payment in US history let's not forget and is the US any better off for it? Do they suddenly have free healthcare? No, it was probably used to buy a few bombs for Ukraine.

Elon Musk pays child support under Texas law so that he can pay the bare minimum. The tight ****.

Anyway, we digress. The point of my post was to cite individuals who believe it is unhealthy to pass on too much wealth to their children and instead circulate it back into society which is also the function of inheritance tax.

PS: I am very much in favour of bombs to Ukraine.

 

[inbetween]

Not sure how we got onto pirates, but back to the matter in hand. Bottom line, you can tax rich people and can definitely tax really rich people. Jobs won’t disappear overnight and we won’t all be living in cardboard boxes - especially the producers of cardboard boxes because they would be quids in.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but a lot of wealth is produced on the back of other peoples efforts and they too should be allowed to share in that wealth (decent pay, benefits etc) and they should see that everyone fairly contributes to the society that we all live in. You may bemoan the State and its inefficiencies yet the billionaire profits from the State in terms of security, infrastructure, educated and healthy labour force etc and without the State the billionaire may not have his or her billions so it is not unreasonable to expect to pay something back and maybe a little more on top in recognition of the benefits the State provides.

Where I agree with you here is on sharing wealth, that's fundamentally how the Scandinavian countries work. Surprise though inheritance tax does not exist at all in the likes of Norway or Sweden. Income and corporate taxes in those countries are generally the same as here.

In those countries they legislate to work with capitalism so that it ensures for example that workers are paid better and have good working conditions. As a result nobody is reliant on the state and it achieving a certain tax income to fill gaps.

It's capitalism with a heart and that's perhaps what we're missing.

 

[Kompany Car]

It doesn't mean that some pirate has nicked £1bn and is sat in his mansion

Well there is the old money brigade who's ancestors were more unscrupulous than most pirates eg The Duke of Westminster and Viscount Portman.