Inheritance

[vikingTON]

20 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I’m not sure if you are asking me what my point is as you did not reply to me directly, however, given your post is immediately after my post I will presume you are.  Apologies if your question was not directed at me.I’m simply contributing to the discussion of inheritance tax in the context of non-dom status having read about it in today’s FT.  

And your contribution is... what, exactly?

If you're just parroting what an article says then post a link to the article. 

Quote

It will be interesting to see how much extra revenue is eventually raised as a result of this versus the amount of money that will no longer be spent / invested in the UK if a large number of non-doms leave the country.

1) What evidence is there that non-doms are likely to leave the country in significant numbers?

2) What evidence is there that investment by these philanthropic heroes plays any significant role in the UK economy? Given that the UK has had both non-dom tax breaks and, err, the lowest investment rate of any G7 country, over decades.  

Quote

I’m not making any point with regards to fairness or otherwise of the tax system.  Like I said, just adding to the discussion in case some posters on here did not read today’s Financial Times article. 

You quite clearly want to make a point but think that hiding it behind an 'hmm interesting article I read in the FT today' angle would make your usual brainless simping for the wealthy more credible. It doesn't though.

Thanks for playing anyway.

Edited June 22 by vikingTON

[Shadow Play]

38 minutes ago, virginton said:

And your contribution is... what, exactly?

If you're just parroting what an article says then post a link to the article. 

1) What evidence is there that non-doms are likely to leave the country in significant numbers?

2) What evidence is there that investment by these philanthropic heroes plays any significant role in the UK economy? Given that the UK has had both non-dom tax breaks and, err, the lowest investment rate of any G7 country, over decades.  

You quite clearly want to make a point but think that hiding it behind an 'hmm interesting article I read in the FT today' angle would make your usual brainless simping for the wealthy more credible. It doesn't though.

Thanks for playing anyway.

I think our short interaction possibly highlights the difference between what you feel may be worthy of posting and what I do.   I clearly stated it was from an article in the FT.  You could use google or purchase the paper if you wish to read it the article in full.

I don’t have anywhere near enough knowledge on the subject matter to make an educated point.  I studied economics many years ago and it is not a subject I recall being discussed.  I suspect it is not a subject you have a great knowledge of either.  Signing off your post “Thanks for playing anyway” also suggests to me you are not seriously looking to widen the discussion on the matter.

Out of interest, do you not think a post can be made simply to make people aware of an article in a paper without trying to make a point?  I am not non-dom,  I do not know any non-doms.  Are all the posts you make about you trying to make a point?  Actually, perhaps that question would be best answered by other posters.

 

 

 

 

[coprolite]

I think the Tories were also looking at changing the basis for inheritance tax from domicile to residence.  

Most of the problems with it are practical. I don’t think treaties generally cover IHT (although we have one with Pakistan) so most tax charges will be hypothetical.
Some Russian dies in Belgravia and leaves shares in a Kazakh mine to his kid in Monaco- how are HMRC even going to know never mind collect 40%?

[Soapy FFC]

4 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Yeh, I briefly read about that elsewhere.  Setting aside any legal and moral failings just how greedy do you have to be to treat people like that? 

It's possibly not greed but more a sense of entitlement. It seems to be the richer you get the more you expect to get things for free. For example, some of our royal family went to see Taylor Swift last night. I doubt they paid for their tickets or even considered they should pay for them. 

[Florentine_Pogen]

35 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

It's possibly not greed but more a sense of entitlement. It seems to be the richer you get the more you expect to get things for free. For example, some of our royal family went to see Taylor Swift last night. I doubt they paid for their tickets or even considered they should pay for them. 

I'd imagine the tix would be paid.

By the public purse, natch.

[Shadow Play]

1 hour ago, Soapy FFC said:

It's possibly not greed but more a sense of entitlement. It seems to be the richer you get the more you expect to get things for free. For example, some of our royal family went to see Taylor Swift last night. I doubt they paid for their tickets or even considered they should pay for them. 

It definitely appears the richer you get the less you require to pay.  I was thinking along similar lines the other night watching the football analysis on BBC.  They fly out to Germany, stay in an expensive hotel and have nice meals all at the expense of the licence payers.  What do they do once they are in Germany?  Watch the games on a giant screen in the studio.  Something they could do back in London.

To make matters worse they now have three pundits when in reality one or two is all that is required (I’m not aware of there being three pundits until fairly recently). Meanwhile those much lower down the salary scale regularly face cutbacks to their pay and conditions these days. 

 

Edited June 22 by Shadow Play

[Granny Danger]

8 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Yeh, I briefly read about that elsewhere.  Setting aside any legal and moral failings just how greedy do you have to be to treat people like that? 

That was my initial thought.  But I wonder if it goes beyond greed as we would understand it and has more to do with subjugating people.  Given their wealth that sort of motivation would have more sense.

['WellDel]

9 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Yeh, I briefly read about that elsewhere.  Setting aside any legal and moral failings just how greedy do you have to be to treat people like that? 

 

Just hard to get your head around the fact that a family worth £37 billion can't bring themselves to pay a decent wage to the people they trust to, among other things, care for their children. 

A level of money that wouldn't even make the slightest ripple on the surface of their vast lake of wealth. Reprehensible basturts.

[Soapy FFC]

31 minutes ago, 'WellDel said:

Just hard to get your head around the fact that a family worth £37 billion can't bring themselves to pay a decent wage to the people they trust to, among other things, care for their children. 

A level of money that wouldn't even make the slightest ripple on the surface of their vast lake of wealth. Reprehensible basturts.

£37 billion would allow you to spend £1 million everyday for 100 years, and still have some change left. 

[itzdrk]

37 minutes ago, 'WellDel said:

Just hard to get your head around the fact that a family worth £37 billion can't bring themselves to pay a decent wage to the people they trust to, among other things, care for their children. 

A level of money that wouldn't even make the slightest ripple on the surface of their vast lake of wealth. Reprehensible basturts.

No billionaire got their money by being a good or decent person.  

[DA Baracus]

Absolutely no one has ever earned a billion.

[beefybake]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

That was my initial thought.  But I wonder if it goes beyond greed as we would understand it and has more to do with subjugating people.  Given their wealth that sort of motivation would have more sense.

Britain reeks of the class system.  In India it's the caste system.

Unsurprising if that's involved.

[Sergeant Wilson]

15 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Absolutely no one has ever earned a billion.

If I had a billion, I'd put it in lots of smaller bundles.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

If I had a billion, I'd put it in lots of smaller bundles.

I’d hire someone to do that.

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

I’d hire someone to do that.

For how much?

[Soapy FFC]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

I’d hire someone to do that.

I'd hire someone to force someone to do it for nothing. 

[TxRover]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

I’d hire someone to do that.

 But would you pay them fairly, that seems to be the question.

Just now, DA Baracus said:

For how much?

Just now, Soapy FFC said:

I'd hire someone to force someone to do it for nothing. 

Which is cheaper?

[Soapy FFC]

2 minutes ago, TxRover said:

 But would you pay them fairly, that seems to be the question.

Which is cheaper?

Which is more fun?

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

I think our short interaction possibly highlights the difference between what you feel may be worthy of posting and what I do.   I clearly stated it was from an article in the FT.  You could use google or purchase the paper if you wish to read it the article in full.

I wouldn't though, because the only people who read the FT unironically are posturing wankers who think that they're in the City but are actually the scum on the City's shoe. 

Quote

I don’t have anywhere near enough knowledge on the subject matter to make an educated point.  I studied economics many years ago and it is not a subject I recall being discussed.  I suspect it is not a subject you have a great knowledge of either.  Signing off your post “Thanks for playing anyway” also suggests to me you are not seriously looking to widen the discussion on the matter.

Except that you haven't widened discussion at all. You're just parroting a City-driven editorial line, one which has helped drive the entire fucking country into the ground over the past 45 years. 

Your insistence that you cannot possibly apply any critical judgment to the sacred text that is a FT article says it all about your bias. You might think that your track record for simping for the rich on this thread has been forgotten: it hasn't though.

Quote

Out of interest, do you not think a post can be made simply to make people aware of an article in a paper without trying to make a point?  I am not non-dom,  I do not know any non-doms.  Are all the posts you make about you trying to make a point?  Actually, perhaps that question would be best answered by other posters.

If you want to raise awareness about an article then post the fucking link. If you have a point to make in connection to that article then do that instead. You're fooling no-one.

[Granny Danger]

30 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

For how much?

Double the living wage.