"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

If you have earned your wealth in a perfectly legal way and paid your taxes, why should other people ‘get their hands on it’ growstuff? How is that remotely fair?

I'm not talking about taking any of it away when people are alive. I'm talking about stopping babies being born unequal.

Actually you are advocating for robbery by the state.

Sounding like a case of I haven’t so neither should anyone else.

Germanshepherdsmum

Yes volver, I’m entitled to hang on to my very nice house and my very nice car, all of which I and my husband have worked bloody hard for, and to pass my assets after IHT to whomsoever I wish. I have also paid a great deal of tax during my working life and still do. What the government of the day chooses to do with that nice chunk of revenue is up to them. As you well know I also support a number of charities of my own choice. Is it any wonder that anyone who has anything to leave votes for a party which allows them that final freedom of choice and doesn’t seek to redistribute everything they have?

Sorry to sound blunt GG13, but give your chosen beneficiaries the things they need now. You really can't do anything with it after you're gone. And if they can afford to wait until you pop your clogs, they don't really need it.

All those people who go to food banks probably do need it.

Please don't talk about the Chancellor as if you know him; he isn't 'Richie', his name is Rishi Sunak. Only one person has suggested 100% IHT so let's not allow it to divert the true problem here; too many people are not paying their fair share of tax, a share which would go towards levelling things up. Or are you all happy with some of our members on here potentially freezing to death next winter? Or not being able to eat properly, let alone have the odd little treat like a haircut or a coffee out?

volver ?

growstuff

Doodledog

It's absolutely not a choice between taking people's money and providing equality of opportunity. If we had a fairer system of progressive taxation we could have a system which ensured that every child had a good start, regardless of their financial expectations.

As I said upthread, by the time most people who are going to inherit do so, the opportunities from their parents are well on the way to their own children. A good education, a network of contacts, a culture of deferred gratification and many other factors that five people a 'good start in life' are all bestowed long before (in most cases) parents die and leave their offspring an inheritance.

Would those who want to remove inheritance take those things from those who have them, so they don't start life with an advantage over those who don't? If not, why push to take away inheritance. It's not a race to the bottom, and fairness can be achieved by giving rather than taking away.

Yes.

Yes to what?

Isn't it interesting that this started as a thread about how the rich are treated differently by this government and has now reached a point where a couple of people sound extremely suspicious and afraid of what others will do to their legacy?

Is there anyone on this forum who is rich? Some shout so loudly for them. The top 1% have an annual income of £688,228. The Sunaks are, I believe, in the top 0.001%.

What most people object to is wealth inequality rather than the existence of wealth. The increase in the inequality levels has been brought about by this government's different treatment of the poor and the rich. Why should the top 10% hold 43% of all the household wealth while 50% hold only 9%?

Those sounding slightly paranoid about what might happen to their money would feel safer, I believe, if we were a society of equals. No one expects total equality. However, I do not believe that one person's life is worth so much more than another's.

The Tories are selfish, entitled people who are happy to have more at the expense of those who have less. They justify this with their "I have worked hard" claims, ignoring the facts; others will have worked harder and in worse circumstances without being so well rewarded. It is no argument. They are not happy with simply having more than others; they want to increase that by continuing to take more off the poorest. I cannot see any sense of morality in this.

growstuff, I’m talking about what happens to my assets when I die. Why on earth should everything I have worked for be redistributed when I die so that every baby can have an equal (financial) start? Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose? No, I worked for myself and my child and paid a lot of tax along the way which I imagine has gone a fair way to help a lot of people. And they will have another nice chunk when I die but nowhere near the 100% you would like - otherwise why would I have bothered? Could have done a low paid job or even stayed at home, claimed benefits and made no financial contribution to society couldn’t I? Where’s the incentive to work your arse off?

GrannyGravy13

volver ?

Oops, very sorry. My post at 19:05 was for GSM, not GG13.

Apologies.

To take everything a person owns when they die, money and property, is theft, pure and simple. That’s why it doesn’t happen.

No problem volver I was just a tad confusing

GSM I think we all know now that you paid a lot of tax. So did I. A lot. In fact, you could probably say I worked my a**e off.

So I might ask, Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose?

Yes. Yes it is. If I'm dead and don't need it, they can have it.

‘The Tories are selfish, entitled people who are happy to have more at the expense of those who have less. They justify this with their "I have worked hard" claims, ignoring the facts; others will have worked harder and in worse circumstances without being so well rewarded. It is no argument. They are not happy with simply having more than others; they want to increase that by continuing to take more off the poorest. I cannot see any sense of morality in this.’

Your final paragraph went too far for me, and I’m a Labour voter DaisyAnne. If you had qualified it by saying ‘the present Tory Government’ rather than ‘Tory Voters’ I would have agreed, but condemning everybody who votes Tory, most of whom aren’t thinking deeply about what it stands for is OTT.

Germanshepherdsmum

So what do you propose dickens?

... something along the lines of the Scandinavian model?

There is sometimes confusion about these countries - people think they are socialist economies - and that's simply not true.

Norway, in particular, has a very healthy Capitalist economy. It also has a fairly well run social and health care system within it - which is probably why some think it's a 'socialist' state.

... and before you point it out - yes, you do pay more tax on your earnings... but those earnings are far in excess of those in the UK. So it's swings and roundabouts.

The housing market is regulated and stable, and there is a high rate of home ownership (and high quality standards).

It's a small country, but its economic model is one based on a desire for a more equitable society, a principle that can be copied, regardless.

As for taxation... there is almost total transparency that keeps companies accountable - and forces them to offer fair salaries.

... that kind of thing is what I propose GSM. All doable, with tweaks here and there to account for the difference in population size, etc. If the will is there.

I know some think that if you are critical of Capitalism - you're by definition a paid-up member of the 'Oh-Jeremy-Corbyn' club, but it's simply not true. I wouldn't mind him as a neighbour, but never as our PM. I am at heart a supporter of Capitalism - but not this (in my view, extreme) right-wing, market-driven, small-state (very small), libertarian ideology, being implemented by self-serving individuals - some of whom are not, really, very bright or well-informed. Our Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, didn't even understand that Channel 4 was publicly-owned, but that it makes its money from its commercial operations, as a recent example. I won't list all the other gaffes by various individuals. But they really are not a very inspiring bunch.

Sorry to say that I think I agree with DaisyAnne. ?

If they aren't thinking about what it stands for when they vote, then that's even worse. Do they not care?

One thing I’ve learnt is that sadly most people just aren’t interested in politics volver. They are taken in so easily by the facade some politicians put up, but if you asked them what the policies, or even the broad underlying principles of a party were, they wouldn’t have a clue. I don’t like the condemnation of a sizeable chunk of the population because they vote in a particular way, because for most people I don’t think that defines their whole being.

We don't have a lot of Tory voters in my neck of the woods, but the ones I do know certainly think we all need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and not spend other people's money. Or that you can't rely on the government to keep you, and if you do get benefits you're a layabout. Probably having babies to claim the Child Support.

volver

GSM I think we all know now that you paid a lot of tax. So did I. A lot. In fact, you could probably say I worked my a**e off.

So I might ask, Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose?

Yes. Yes it is. If I'm dead and don't need it, they can have it.

But you don’t have kids volver. Therein lies a very big difference. If I had no kids everything would go to chosen charities. That would mean zero IHT.

Ach, it was only a matter of time....

No, I don't have kids. So how could I possibly understand?

Casdon

‘The Tories are selfish, entitled people who are happy to have more at the expense of those who have less. They justify this with their "I have worked hard" claims, ignoring the facts; others will have worked harder and in worse circumstances without being so well rewarded. It is no argument. They are not happy with simply having more than others; they want to increase that by continuing to take more off the poorest. I cannot see any sense of morality in this.’

Your final paragraph went too far for me, and I’m a Labour voter DaisyAnne. If you had qualified it by saying ‘the present Tory Government’ rather than ‘Tory Voters’ I would have agreed, but condemning everybody who votes Tory, most of whom aren’t thinking deeply about what it stands for is OTT.

Don't you mean it is over the top for you Casdon? I doubt you have been elected to speak for everyone.

The Tories have been in power for 12 years. People can see what they do. They vote for them. They also come on here and tell us what they expect and it certainly isn't greater equality of outcome - or not if they have to go without in any way.

We are responsible for how we vote. Responsible for ourselves and responsible for those damaged by the outcome of those votes. Brexiteers are responsible for Brexit - otherwise who is? So he/she/they who voted a Tory government in are also responsible and we have heard just how self-centered that vote was time and time again.

Can anyone show any good that has come out of this government?

Germanshepherdsmum

*growstuff*, I’m talking about what happens to my assets when I die. Why on earth should everything I have worked for be redistributed when I die so that every baby can have an equal (financial) start? Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose? No, I worked for myself and my child and paid a lot of tax along the way which I imagine has gone a fair way to help a lot of people. And they will have another nice chunk when I die but nowhere near the 100% you would like - otherwise why would I have bothered? Could have done a low paid job or even stayed at home, claimed benefits and made no financial contribution to society couldn’t I? Where’s the incentive to work your arse off?

The problem is Gsm that there are people working their arse off who can barely make ends meet because the job they have is low paid. These unfortunately are actually the people who hold our society together, they are the carers, the nursery nurses, the health care assistants and the hundreds of other people who provide care and support and without whom nothing would function. If we had a society that paid people a proper wage for these jobs you might have a point. But while we have such huge inequalities with people whose contribution to society is minimal but whose financial gain is huge, and others who contribute hugely but for little financial reward, the idea that this is acceptable is insupportable. Add to that the fact that these are the group who contribute a larger portion of their income in tax, because most tax now is indirect tax and the inequality continues. 26% of the income of the lowest paid goes on tax and 15% of the richest. How can that be right?
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/005778directandindirecttaxesasapercentageofgrossincomeforallhouseholdsbyquintilegroupfinancialyearending2015

volver

Ach, it was only a matter of time....

No, I don't have kids. So how could I possibly understand?

Well it seems that you don’t.

You're not the first person to tell me I don't understand, because I don't have kids, and you won't be the last.

My perspective is that I'm not constrained by sentimental ideas of parenthood. Who's to say which of us is right?

I did say your final paragraph went too far for me DaisyAnne, so yes, I made it clear that I was speaking for myself. I believe you missed the point I was making though. I’m not just referring to contributors on Gransnet, and I do think condemning all people who voted Tory is wrong. In an ideal world every voter would be interested, well informed and conscious of the impact of the decision they are making when they put their cross in the box, but that isn’t the reality.

I have seen many examples of people my age 70+ whose parents scrimped and scraped, in the process depriving themselves, in order to leave their children some money. Many of them inherited whilst in their late 50s, early 60s and what did they do with it? They bought a more expensive, or had a cruise or two or maybe even bought home if they were lucky.

I am child free and my money, if there's any left, will go to charities. I will probably leave some legacies to my nieces and nephews, if I happen to live in England at the time. Living in France there's not a lot of point because they would suffer 60% tax on the bequest.

I wish people would stop saying how they worked and remember that a large proportion of their wealth will have come from the increase in property values which was outside their control.

volver

Ach, it was only a matter of time....

No, I don't have kids. So how could I possibly understand?

Theresa May didn't have kids.

And that awful Andrea Leadsom suggested in an interview that "being a mother" gave her more stake in the future than childfree Theresa. I wonder if anyone ever challenged Angela Merkel similarly? I'm sure she'd have had an appropriate reply - as she did when it was put to her that she dressed rather plainly...

Nearly every gyny consultant and specialist I've ever seen, doesn't have a vagina - yet, miraculously, manages to do the job - and the last one, he was kindness itself! Who knew!