The Chronicles of Rishi

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your true colours exposed. Scarlet red with notes of virtue signalling jealousy. There’s wealth as a relative measure and wealth at an extreme. The lower end of wealth is undefined except by the IHT threshold on which the shitty government preys.

This is a very childish retort. I have no need to be jealous, I am more than comfortable in terms of my personal wealth. However, you seem to regard those who clearly have accrued disproportionate amounts of (mostly unearned) wealth as somehow immune from contributing at the same level as the rest of us. This either means you are one of them or you have an irrational need to shill on their behalf.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

This is a very childish retort. I have no need to be jealous, I am more than comfortable in terms of my personal wealth. However, you seem to regard those who clearly have accrued disproportionate amounts of (mostly unearned) wealth as somehow immune from contributing at the same level as the rest of us. This either means you are one of them or you have an irrational need to shill on their behalf.

I draw the distinction between people dragged into "wealth" by fiscal drag and the mega-wealthy. Btw, I don't think we should overtax the mega-wealthy lest we drive them away, taking their investment with them.

It's a complicated matter, but at the heart of it is the lack of economic growth in the UK and thus a (shitty) government scrabbling for treasury income.

I'm certain about the politics of envy - the have-nots versus the have-so-much. But the people at the bottom of the "wealth" tree are not the have-so-much people. IHT is an unfair blunt instrument.

We both crave good government but, alas, the present bunch of lying toad politicians are not going to deliver economic growth.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm certain about the politics of envy -

Are you though? Because that phrase is routinely misused so as to make it seem those who argue for fairer taxes think the revenue might be used to provide them with the same yachts, holidays in St Tropez and Range Rover Velars as the very comfortably off enjoy. When in fact, what we typically think is that those who have benefited from getting rich in the UK should pay a reasonable amount towards keeping the UK working. You know, things like making sure hospitals don’t have 8-hour ambulance queues outside them, or schools whose roofs aren’t falling in. Maybe even a modern rail line that extends more than 100 miles from the capital.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Are you though? Because that phrase is routinely misused so as to make it seem those who argue for fairer taxes think the revenue might be used to provide them with the same yachts, holidays in St Tropez and Range Rover Velars as the very comfortably off enjoy. When in fact, what we typically think is that those who have benefited from getting rich in the UK should pay a reasonable amount towards keeping the UK working. You know, things like making sure hospitals don’t have 8-hour ambulance queues outside them, or schools whose roofs aren’t falling in. Maybe even a modern rail line that extends more than 100 miles from the capital.

Well, yes. IHT is not the mechanism for achieving this.

The term "politics of envy" is no less fuzzy than the term "wealth". Yet we all use those terms.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well, yes. IHT is not the mechanism for achieving this.

The term "politics of envy" is no less fuzzy than the term "wealth". Yet we all use those terms.

IHT is definitely one of the required tools albeit with some fine tuning to raise thresholds and remove avoidance loopholes.

The term "wealth" is a objective fact whereas "politics of envy" is a lazy trope used to deflect from grown up discussions on fairer levels of societal contribution

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

IHT is definitely one of the required tools albeit with some fine tuning to raise thresholds and remove avoidance loopholes.

The term "wealth" is a objective fact whereas "politics of envy" is a lazy trope used to deflect from grown up discussions on fairer levels of societal contribution

No. "Wealth" is fuzzy and wholly relative. A leftie would say what you did.

"Politics of envy" is very clear - you have one I don't; I want one and which political party is going to give me one?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No. "Wealth" is fuzzy and wholly relative. A leftie would say what you did.

"Politics of envy" is very clear - you have one I don't; I want one and which political party is going to give me one?

One of what, though? Are you mindlessly sticking to the lazy smear that the have-nots ‘want’ yachts, fancy holidays and Range Rovers and that this is what the business of raising taxes is about?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

One of what, though? Are you mindlessly sticking to the lazy smear that the have-nots ‘want’ yachts, fancy holidays and Range Rovers and that this is what the business of raising taxes is about?

I'm surprised that you, of all people have said the above, bringing in superlatives such as 'yachts'.

Surely you know that "I want one" includes for the have-nots "if I can't have one, then at least tax the bustards".

It's akin to VAT on private schools; watch that backfire.

[Ms NTL]

There is the 7 year rule. You can dispose everything, except the house you live in.

If you pass that on, then you need to pay rent to your off springs/beneficiaries.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm surprised that you, of all people have said the above, bringing in superlatives such as 'yachts'.

Surely you know that "I want one" includes for the have-nots "if I can't have one, then at least tax the bustards".

It's akin to VAT on private schools; watch that backfire.

I know no such thing - all you’ve done is throw in another lazy trope. Nobody’s talking about rinsing rich people so they’re not rich any more. And VAT on school fees is the very least they should be doing. Without clear and specific evidence of charitable purpose, private schools should be losing their charity registrations as well. No organisation charging customers £30 a year for its services is a charity unless it can explicitly prove otherwise. And that proof needs to be much more convincing than a small handful of bursaries for carefully-screened individuals.

Built-in tax dodges for those with the least reason to be dodging tax in the first place have got to stop.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

I know no such thing - all you’ve done is throw in another lazy trope. Nobody’s talking about rinsing rich people so they’re not rich any more. And VAT on school fees is the very least they should be doing. Without clear and specific evidence of charitable purpose, private schools should be losing their charity registrations as well. No organisation charging customers £30 a year for its services is a charity unless it can explicitly prove otherwise. And that proof needs to be much more convincing than a small handful of bursaries for carefully-screened individuals.

Built-in tax dodges for those with the least reason to be dodging tax in the first place have got to stop.

Wrong. IHT does not rinse rich people. It rinses will beneficiaries at the lowest end of the IHT wealth scale. Once again it's the ordinary folk who pay through government taxation by stealth.

Why are the detractors of my view not making the distinction between rich and ordinary?

[jfman]

Those ordinary folk in line to inherit the best part of a million pounds. Wait there while I get the world’s smallest violin.

[Mr K]

If you're worried about IHT, just give the money away, as long as you survive 7 years , job done. It isn't a hard tax to get round so I don't know why the toffs are moaning.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

If you're worried about IHT, just give the money away, as long as you survive 7 years , job done. It isn't a hard tax to get round so I don't know why the toffs are moaning.

They’re moaning that 7 years ago they didn’t anticipate the housing bubble to keep going.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's akin to VAT on private schools; watch that backfire.

There has been/will be a lot whinging from the small number of people affected by this but let's face it, they have had a free ride here for so long. The tax free train is coming to a stop on this one.

In the "free market" paradise many of these people adhere to, there is no subsidy if you choose to not use the default, free option. In fact, the funny thing about this is that these are the very same people have meekly accepted the large increases of private school fees in the past:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7023056.html

Over the past 25 years private school fees have risen by 550 per cent. But consumer prices in that time are up only 200 per cent

I did not hear them whinging then ...

Originally Posted by Chris

I know no such thing - all you’ve done is throw in another lazy trope. Nobody’s talking about rinsing rich people so they’re not rich any more. And VAT on school fees is the very least they should be doing. Without clear and specific evidence of charitable purpose, private schools should be losing their charity registrations as well. No organisation charging customers £30 a year for its services is a charity unless it can explicitly prove otherwise. And that proof needs to be much more convincing than a small handful of bursaries for carefully-screened individuals.

Built-in tax dodges for those with the least reason to be dodging tax in the first place have got to stop.

Please can we have more Chris's on this forum

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Wrong. IHT does not rinse rich people. It rinses will beneficiaries at the lowest end of the IHT wealth scale. Once again it's the ordinary folk who pay through government taxation by stealth.

Why are the detractors of my view not making the distinction between rich and ordinary?

Please define "ordinary" for the basis of this discussion