hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1603 of 1678 FirstFirst ... 6031103150315531593160016011602160316041605160616131653 ... LastLast
Results 32,041 to 32,060 of 33543

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #32041
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,863
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Because you're dead. The dead cannot own.
    Alright so wills suddently don't exist?

  2. #32042
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,327
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Alright, so, I'm honestly asking here: if an individual "pays in" to society, pays hits taxes etc, why should/would the state automatically get part of their estate

    I don't understand the thinking behind it, so I'm asking as to why
    why should somebody be born into/inherit wealth they did not earn ?
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  3. #32043
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Alright, so, I'm honestly asking here: if an individual "pays in" to society, pays hits taxes etc, why should/would the state automatically get part of their estate

    I don't understand the thinking behind it, so I'm asking as to why
    why should somebody be born into/inherit wealth they did not earn ?
    Why should all of your achievements go into the bin when you die?

  4. #32044
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Alright, so, I'm honestly asking here: if an individual "pays in" to society, pays hits taxes etc, why should/would the state automatically get part of their estate

    I don't understand the thinking behind it, so I'm asking as to why
    why should somebody be born into/inherit wealth they did not earn ?
    Why should all of your achievements go into the bin when you die?
    Cause your dead? And its not an achievement to inherit wealth.

  5. #32045
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Alright, so, I'm honestly asking here: if an individual "pays in" to society, pays hits taxes etc, why should/would the state automatically get part of their estate

    I don't understand the thinking behind it, so I'm asking as to why
    why should somebody be born into/inherit wealth they did not earn ?
    Why should all of your achievements go into the bin when you die?
    Cause your dead? And its not an achievement to inherit wealth.
    It probably make life a bit easier though.
    meh

  6. #32046

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Because you're dead. The dead cannot own.
    Alright so wills suddently don't exist?
    Let's try some basic critical thinking. Why should someone be able to command where property goes when they're dead? Correlated to that, why should someone who hasn't paid into society (i.e. the inheritor) benefit to the preference of everyone else?
    Last edited by elmicker; August 11 2018 at 12:53:40 AM.

  7. #32047
    Shaikar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Kador
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Because you're dead. The dead cannot own.
    Alright so wills suddently don't exist?
    Let's try some basic critical thinking. Why should someone be able to command where property goes when they're dead? Correlated to that, why should someone who hasn't paid into society (i.e. the inheritor) benefit to the preference of everyone else?
    This is basic critical thinking, is it? Alright then.

    Why shouldn't someone be able to command where their property goes when they're dead?

    Why do you assume an inheritor hasn't paid into society, or that the deceased didn't pay into society in the process of collecting that inheritance?

  8. #32048

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikar View Post
    Why shouldn't someone be able to command where their property goes when they're dead?
    Because they're dead. The dead have no property rights. They're dead.

    Why do you assume an inheritor hasn't paid into society, or that the deceased didn't pay into society in the process of collecting that inheritance?
    Because this is not how tax works. Otherwise we'd be sat here saying "Well why do I have to pay income tax, my employer already paid corporation tax on that money!".

    Unless you're one of those nutcases who believe all taxation is theft, of course.

  9. #32049
    Phrixus Zephyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Queenstown, NZ
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    inheritance tax is bullshit, end of
    How the hell do you reach that conclusion? Playing too much fucking Crusader Kings?

    Absence of inheritance tax is incompatible with representative democratic government. It's literally where entrenched aristocracies come from.
    Why is the state entitled to my shit just because I died
    Logical musings on the ideas of what the dead can own aside. With economies like ours it's incredibly easy to make money with money and if you don't add some kind of mechanism to subtract accumulated wealth from those who have amassed it you're going to quickly end up with absurd inequality of wealth.

    We're already seeing it now. Changes to upper tax brackets and inheritance tax rates in the 60s or 70s (?) and stagnation of real wage growth of anyone who's not a CEO has given us inequality not seen since the great depression.

    It's going to end really badly if it carries on like this. Inheritance tax is a small price to pay in the long run for some semblance of equilibrium.

    Sent from my H8324 using Tapatalk

  10. #32050
    Shaikar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Kador
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Because they're dead. The dead have no property rights. They're dead.
    Except most jurisdictions and societies appear to disagree, as wills have been around in various forms for thousands of years, giving dead people certain levels of rights in the disposition of their stuff.
    When someone dies, their stuff is generally not seen as free to the first folk who happen along.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Because this is not how tax works.
    Ah, you were referring to specifically regarding paying from the the inheritance and not in general - fair enough. I read "someone who hasn't paid into society" differently.

    That said, there's is no One True Way for how tax works. Tax works differently across wealth bands (courtesy of the mess that is the legislation we've inherited over the centuries) and apply (or not) in different ways to various things on a seemingly arbitrary basis.

  11. #32051
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,961
    I mean, we could go back to actually trying to take it with us. Big ziggurats or pyramids or giant disk tombs held up by turtles and elephants and what have you.

    Maybe I can have my corporate employees buried with me along with all my wealth to serve me in the afterlife.
    meh

  12. #32052
    Shaikar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Kador
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrixus Zephyr View Post
    Logical musings on the ideas of what the dead can own aside. With economies like ours it's incredibly easy to make money with money and if you don't add some kind of mechanism to subtract accumulated wealth from those who have amassed it you're going to quickly end up with absurd inequality of wealth.

    We're already seeing it now. Changes to upper tax brackets and inheritance tax rates in the 60s or 70s (?) and stagnation of real wage growth of anyone who's not a CEO has given us inequality not seen since the great depression.

    It's going to end really badly if it carries on like this. Inheritance tax is a small price to pay in the long run for some semblance of equilibrium.

    Sent from my H8324 using Tapatalk
    The 80's are where high level pay really started to rocket. I've read that the mid-late 70's were one of the most equal periods of wealth, in the UK at least. Don't know how true that is mind but have seen the assertion in a few different places. v0v

    In any case, some form of inheritance tax certainly makes sense. I don't think we've got a particularly good implementation in the UK though, it's got too many loopholes for those who can afford to exploit them and can be crushing on those who can't, given the thresholds and the fucked nature of the housing market in many areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I mean, we could go back to actually trying to take it with us. Big ziggurats or pyramids or giant disk tombs held up by turtles and elephants and what have you.

    Maybe I can have my corporate employees buried with me along with all my wealth to serve me in the afterlife.
    Don't forget the electrum capstone!

  13. #32053
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,333
    I mean the dead do have property rights, sort of, that’s what an estate is. The legal entity that is you (and it’s that legal entity that owns things in the eyes of the state) continues to exist after you die because your legal obligations and rights don’t die with you, at least not instantly.

    And it’s ancient practice that where someone dies with no will and no heirs, the property escheats to the state. But even with a will and heirs, or just heirs and no will, it’s also pretty well understood that the state has an interest in taxing the assets of large estates. That goes back to the feudal era, even.

    But in modern times, with representative governments and constitutions and the like, and especially the rise of monetarism and modern finance, the inheritance tax plays an important role in keeping society meaningfully democratic and in combatting monopoly power. Even most liberals think this is a good idea.

    The other option is to not tax the estate directly, but tax any gift or devise received by an heir as income, and have a steep income tax. I’m dodgy on tax law (especially UK tax law), but I think that property received as inheritance is exempted, the thought being that it’s already been subject to whatever necessary taxation via the inheritance tax mechanism.

    Either way, if you have [i]any/i] compunctions against oligarchy or landed aristocracy, you ought to support an inheritance tax of some scope.

    I’m not even against passing on a fairly luxe life to one’s kids; here in the US the first $5 mil are exempt. Others here think that’s way too high... but as others have pointed out, in today’s absurd market, a family home can top $1m pretty easy. I don’t think it’s fair to take away someone’s home in this circumstance, as a low.theeshold tax can do. I also don’t really mind the concept of an heir receiving enough cash assets to live well; a few million dollars isn’t going to last very long unless managed judiciously, and besides, any further growth of the estate is just going to be subject to further taxation upon the heir’s death.

    But I do think that above the $whatever cutoff, the tax needs to be steeeeeeeep. We do not need families like the Du Ponts, and the Rockefellers, and the Koch’s, or even the Bushes, to say nothing of the Gatses or the Zuckerberg-Chans. Wealth singularities are not good for democratic or even republican society, and an inheritance tax is how you prevent them.

  14. #32054
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    But I do think that above the $whatever cutoff, the tax needs to be steeeeeeeep. We do not need families like the Du Ponts, and the Rockefellers, and the Koch’s, or even the Bushes, to say nothing of the Gatses or the Zuckerberg-Chans. Wealth singularities are not good for democratic or even republican society, and an inheritance tax is how you prevent them.
    Except those families literally exist, have existed for a very long time, arent going anywhere, and wealth disparity has not been greater since the gilded age or maybe even the renaissance so I'll ask again how exactly taxing the shit out of some guys family for inheriting a flat in London is "preventing aristocracy" when we already live in an oligarchy both in the UK and USA?

    Edit: even the fucking Habsburg family is still around. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Habsburg
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; August 11 2018 at 06:25:47 AM.

  15. #32055
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,866
    The middle classes get squeezed most by a tax which the ultra wealthy don't worry too much about? I've never heard that one before!

    Eat the Koch Brothers. Or use them to flavour a stew and throw the meat away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  16. #32056
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I mean, we could go back to actually trying to take it with us. Big ziggurats or pyramids or giant disk tombs held up by turtles and elephants and what have you.

    Maybe I can have my corporate employees buried with me along with all my wealth to serve me in the afterlife.
    Actually that would create growth and jobs, thus benefiting the living in the society.

  17. #32057

    Join Date
    April 9, 2012
    Location
    Pit of depravity
    Posts
    7,106
    Government and “society”isn’t getting any of my stuff. All going to my wife in one form or another, and she 100% deserves it. All other argument s can go do one as far as I’m concerned

  18. #32058
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,327
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #32059
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Idk, they wanted money to read the rest of what appears to be an anti-trans rant, and it doesn’t seem like the kind kind of publication I’d use as toilet paper, let alone give money to. Care to synopsis, or is it just as irrideemable and retarded as the headline and first paragraph indicate?
    meh

  20. #32060

    Join Date
    April 9, 2012
    Location
    Pit of depravity
    Posts
    7,106
    Lol, at least he’s not beating around the bush.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •