The Labour Government

Chippy_boy said:
Yeah of course, get all that. I mentioned Mansion Tax is the same post, which was perhaps confusing.

But back to IHT, for me it's a matter of principle. You either think it is morally right for the state to take money off people when they die, depriving their airs of money that their parents presumably wanted them to have, or you don't. I am in the latter camp. You live your life and pay your taxes, and that should be the end of it IMO. I don't think it's right that when you die the state should say great we can now have even more of that money you've accumulated. Even worse, to change the rules on people AFTER they have made all of their life choices. The holidays they didn't take, the car they didn't buy, the house move they didn't do, so they can give money to their kids and give them a leg up in life. Only to find that Rachel Thieves says thanks very much, glad you've accumulated that cash, we'll have some more of that (laughing as she does it).

So I am not in favour of their being any IHT at all, let alone a reduction in the tax exempt limits.
Click to expand...
Are you also against VAT?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Nope neither, I would start off by taxing big business at a % level above what SMEs are paying. The very biggest businesses don't pay tax at all in this country and can certainly afford it. Then I would look at non doms. Starmer and Reeves have a delicate balancing act to achieve tax wise next month. They need to encourage growth first and foremost otherwise the overall tax revenue won't grow, so taxing SMEs isn't the best choice. None of this is helped by the cost of borrowing being the highest its been for well over a decade, and sectors of the economy still in recession. From what little I've seen I like Reeves, she is clearly a clever cookie and Labour certainly deserve their chance, so we shall have to see.
Click to expand...
But let's be honest, if the large corporations aren't paying any of the tax they're currently supposed to be paying, then increasing the tax rate isn't going to achieve anything. They'll just not be paying a higher rate of tax. What really needs to happen with multinational corporations is a new system where they actually get taxed on immovable assets rather than profits. Starbucks want to run all of their profits through some giant Swiss tax swizz, fine. Tax every one of their coffee shops instead. VAT for Starbucks at 40% instead of 20%. Tax multinational corporations like alcohol, based on the harm they do to the economy.
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
But let's be honest, if the large corporations aren't paying any of the tax they're currently supposed to be paying, then increasing the tax rate isn't going to achieve anything. They'll just not be paying a higher rate of tax. What really needs to happen with multinational corporation is a new system where they actually get taxed on immovable assets rather than profits. Starbucks want to run all of their profits through some giant Swiss tax swizz, fine. Tax every one of their coffee shops instead. VAT for Starbucks at 40% instead of 20%. Tax multinational corporations like alcohol, based on the harm they do to the economy.
Click to expand...
100%, that's what I meant. The tax system needs to be changed. These companies just exploit the UK and numerous other countries. The power and influence they have is shocking.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
And what happened? Did you pay someone take away all your old shoes or did you get any money for them? Sounds like you were aggrieved that a charity didn't want to allocate money, time and resources on stock that was of minimal value and save you paying clearance costs.



You sound like a nice bloke, is there a pub corner you spend your evenings in?
Click to expand...
The whole point was that the charities get items that could be sent to third world countries that I believe would welcome things like that. Yes I would have got them cleared from the building but at the time I would rather someone would benefit from them. The disposal cost was minimal so it didn't really come into the equation as we were clearing a lot of other stuff out anyway and no I didn't get anything for them.

I don't really go to pubs these days only wine bars.
 
bluenova said:
By the time you've told that story a few more times, the shoes will have been all clean and boxed up neatly, and the reps will be arriving by helicopter ;)
Click to expand...
So you think I'm exaggerating then ? you keep giving your hard earned away if that keeps you happy.
 
maxwellblue said:
The whole point was that the charities get items that could be sent to third world countries that I believe would welcome things like that. Yes I would have got them cleared from the building but at the time I would rather someone would benefit from them. The disposal cost was minimal so it didn't really come into the equation as we were clearing a lot of other stuff out anyway and no I didn't get anything for them.

I don't really go to pubs these days only wine bars.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the third world is absolutely swamped with all of our old clothes nowadays. The days where your old clothes would be welcomed by the needy are long gone. I saw a bloke from a tribe in the jungles of Malaysia wearing a 2020 Liverpool shirt ffs.

And then there's the infamous Fifty Shades of Grey fort in Oxfam built from all of the donated copies.

qwzu3i4i9yqa1.jpg
 
maxwellblue said:
So you think I'm exaggerating then ? you keep giving your hard earned away if that keeps you happy.
Click to expand...

I do think you're exaggerating. I've worked with hundreds of different charities, over a number of decades, and knowing what kind of salaries those kind of jobs pay, the thought of them all turning up in new Mercs and BMWs makes me smile.

I can, however, imagine them turning down the opportunity to clear out your warehouse.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Honestly, the third world is absolutely swamped with all of our old clothes nowadays. The days where your old clothes would be welcomed by the needy are long gone. I saw a bloke from a tribe in the jungles of Malaysia wearing a 2020 Liverpool shirt ffs.
Click to expand...
It was back in 2001. And fine if they didn't want them it was no skin of my nose, I thought I was doing a good thing at the time. What I found annoying was the cars they came in weren't your standard rep mobiles and all they were after really was money.
 
bluenova said:
I do think you're exaggerating. I've worked with hundreds of different charities, over a number of decades, and the thought of them all turning up in new Mercs and BMWs makes me smile.

I can, however, imagine them turning down the opportunity to clear out your warehouse.
Click to expand...
Up to you but I was there and the guy from the Red Cross turned up in a new BM and the bloke from Oxfam in a Merc.

4 Old dears turned up from Age Concern who proceeded to spend a couple of hrs trying on shoes and filled the car up they came in with shoes for themselves, but good luck to them. That did make me chuckle.

Yeah, god forbid they had to put a bit of effort in.
 
Ha, now it looks like Rachel Thieves is going to hit pensioners with moderate pension pots with a limit on how much of the pot can be taken out tax free. Currently it is 25% but Rachel Thieves is looking at putting a limit of 100k on that.
Just as I'm ramping up to retire. a comfortable retirement becomes not so comfortable.
Deep joy!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
So he isn’t ever going to return us back into the EU and he is about to launch another period of higher taxation and austerity upon us.

I’m glad I voted for change that’s for sure.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Ha, now it looks like Rachel Thieves is going to hit pensioners with moderate pension pots with a limit on how much of the pot can be taken out tax free. Currently it is 25% but Rachel Thieves is looking at putting a limit of 100k on that.
Just as I'm ramping up to retire. a comfortable retirement becomes not so comfortable.
Deep joy!
Click to expand...
Lots of doctors will be leaving soon then
 
Blue Maverick said:
Lots of doctors will be leaving soon then
Click to expand...
Of course. I predict mayhem in the NHS if leaks keep coming like this one.
Of course Thieves could put NHS pensioners in the same protected pension bucket as Civil Servants to mitigate the damage.
 
Last edited:
Of course this is possiblly the Government going through the Treasury options list that each incoming Tory Chanceler said no too.
The big one is road pricing - bound to happen eventually but whoever introduces it will be out of office after the following election for 20+ years. The sense of betrayal by those who have done the right thing and gone green will be palpable.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Yeah of course, get all that. I mentioned Mansion Tax is the same post, which was perhaps confusing.

But back to IHT, for me it's a matter of principle. You either think it is morally right for the state to take money off people when they die, depriving their airs of money that their parents presumably wanted them to have, or you don't. I am in the latter camp. You live your life and pay your taxes, and that should be the end of it IMO. I don't think it's right that when you die the state should say great we can now have even more of that money you've accumulated. Even worse, to change the rules on people AFTER they have made all of their life choices. The holidays they didn't take, the car they didn't buy, the house move they didn't do, so they can give money to their kids and give them a leg up in life. Only to find that Rachel Thieves says thanks very much, glad you've accumulated that cash, we'll have some more of that (laughing as she does it).

So I am not in favour of their being any IHT at all, let alone a reduction in the tax exempt limits.
Click to expand...

Yeah loads of people with houses 500k up to millions and above are car less and dont take holidays.

Why do you keep giving out false figures and false scenarios?
 
maxwellblue said:
Up to you but I was there and the guy from the Red Cross turned up in a new BM and the bloke from Oxfam in a Merc.

4 Old dears turned up from Age Concern who proceeded to spend a couple of hrs trying on shoes and filled the car up they came in with shoes for themselves, but good luck to them. That did make me chuckle.

Yeah, god forbid they had to put a bit of effort in.
Click to expand...

I was only teasing about the helicopters, but what you described doesn't reflect the charity sector I know, and it's a shame it's coloured your view for all this time.

Places dealing with second hand clothes and shoes will make money because people give them things for free, which they can then sell, or give away. They want clothes that are clean, or freshly washed, because for a lot it's not financially worth it top get the clothes cleaned and still sell them.

Half the people doing these collections will be volunteers (which is likely with the Age Concern women). Managing a shop for Age UK pays only just above minimum wage, and they pay advice workers maybe 25k. You may well have been identified as a high net worth individual so got a bit of a sales pitch, but even so, it's probably a coincidence that you met a couple of people driving nice cars. I just can't imagine the kind of positions in those charities that would have come with a car like that, or would have paid anything like a big salary, unless you're talking senior management at the head office (remember these are huge organisations, managing thousands of staff members, and working across multiple countries, so the senior management may well be reasonably well paid - although nothing in comparison to equivalent private sector jobs).

The bit of effort is also asking someone to spend money on what isn't exactly a high margin business. Going into a building where the previous owners have abandoned stock and equipment isn't something they would usually do, and if you're not set up it's likely to fail either a value for money test, a risk assessment, or both.

Most charities rely on volunteers, or staff being paid well below private sector rates, and, far from being scams, the vast majority will have an economic impact well beyond the donations they receive.
 
hilts said:
Yeah loads of people with houses 500k up to millions and above are car less and dont take holidays.

Why do you keep giving out false figures and false scenarios?
Click to expand...

I read it as the luxury option that they didn't take rather than they didn't have any at all. Doesn't make sense otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top