Scotrail

[SuperSaints1877]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

You forgot Crossrail and the parliament refurb.

Rwanda deportations?

So many others. Sadly the list is too long and the corruption and greed is too far reaching. 

[craigkillie]

22 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

‘It’s fundamentally wrong’ - Why? 

Why are folk so het up about folk trying to help their families out? What is the point of working hard if you can’t help your family out. You’d be as well just giving up and not trying. Then we can all be equally feckless and it’ll be fair.

After seeing the efforts of ‘the state’ why are they so keen to see individuals give all their hard earned wealth away to the state? Do they think the state will suddenly become dynamic and sort out all the ills of the world?

The point is not to move HKHibee's kids (or anyone else's kids) 50m back to the start, but instead to bring the rest of society 30 or 40m forwards towards them. "The state" in its current form is almost exclusively run by and for the benefit of people who have themselves had that headstart, so it's baked into the system, but if that headstart was no longer there then there is likely to be also an attitude shift in terms of what the state is there to do.

Your family still sees the benefit of "working hard" (a questionable term in itself because there are plenty of folk running themselves into the ground just to keep their heads above the water) even without having to also reap the direct financial benefits of inheritance. My dad was the first in his family to go to university, and he ended up having more options in his life than his dad did because of that. My dad's education got him a good job as a teacher and that comfortable upbringing meant I ended up with more opportunities than he did, even if I was still in a town and school where most people didn't go to good universities. Now my own daughter will most likely have what will ultimately be a very privileged childhood and will have access to even more opportunities than me as a result - for example going to a (state) school where people regularly end up going off to study medicine, law and the likes. None of that came from any of us passing down a family fortune or inheriting property or so on.

Edited June 24, 2022 by craigkillie

[craigkillie]

Just now, oaksoft said:

Yes but the cold, hard and brutal reality is that taking the kids inheritance from them and putting it into the state WILL send those kids 50m back and do nothing to bring he other kids 30m or 40m closer.

A tax reform like this would not be implemented in a vacuum, the sort of government who would propose it would do so as part of a suite of policies specifically designed to do that.

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

A tax reform like this would not be implemented in a vacuum, the sort of manifesto that would propose it would draw howls of laughter from the electorate

FTFY.

Genuine question.  Given your fathers circumstances I would assume he owns his house and may have some other assets?

If my assumption is true would both he and you be happy to hand those over to the state when the unfortunate time arrives?

[SuperSaints1877]

The chief executive of Birmingham Airport's pay has risen by 49% pay rise, it has emerged, angering trade unions.

Nick Barton's annual wage increased from £399,000 to £595,000 last year.
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61917259
 

WTAF?

 

[Left Back]

14 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yes but the cold, hard and brutal reality is that taking the kids inheritance from them and putting it into the state WILL send those kids 50m back and do nothing to bring he other kids 30m or 40m closer.

What is defined as an acceptable head-start in life?

Some kids are born thick.  Some are born lazy.  If the idea is to handicap everyone to bring them down to the lowest common denominator how do we deal with thick and lazy?

Some are born truly disadvantaged. Physical and/or mental disadvantages (if I’ve used a politically incorrect term I meant no offence).  How are we levelling the playing field there?

Unfortunately life isn’t, and can never be, truly fair.

[Left Back]

6 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

The chief executive of Birmingham Airport's pay has risen by 49% pay rise, it has emerged, angering trade unions.

Nick Barton's annual wage increased from £399,000 to £595,000 last year.
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61917259
 

WTAF?

 

Hidden in that article is the Heathrow equivalent getting an 85% rise last year to £1.5m

Fair rewards for the hard work they’ve put in over the last couple of years

[craigkillie]

15 minutes ago, Left Back said:

FTFY.

Genuine question.  Given your fathers circumstances I would assume he owns his house and may have some other assets?

If my assumption is true would both he and you be happy to hand those over to the state when the unfortunate time arrives?

The fact that these types of policies are not considered realistic in this country is entirely the result of the baked in privelige that I already mentioned in an earlier post. It doesn't prevent the topic from being discussed seriously.

To answer your question, I would happily pay a hefty inheritance tax on whatever comes my way if that was implemented across the board and we were able to also use it to tax Lord Huffleberry III's property portfolio when he pops his clogs. However, if that doesn't happen then no I'm not going to voluntarily phone up the government and say "please take this money". I don't see that as a contradiction though - the whole point of socialist policies is that they apply to everyone.

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The fact that these types of policies are not considered realistic in this country is entirely the result of the baked in privelige that I already mentioned in an earlier post. It doesn't prevent the topic from being discussed seriously.

To answer your question, I would happily pay a hefty inheritance tax on whatever comes my way if that was implemented across the board and we were able to also use it to tax Lord Huffleberry III's property portfolio when he pops his clogs. However, if that doesn't happen then no I'm not going to voluntarily phone up the government and say "please take this money". I don't see that as a contradiction though - the whole point of socialist policies is that they apply to everyone.

What is your fathers opinion on this? He gets a say also.  He’s the one that earned it.

We all know btw that Lord Huffleberry is never paying what we would deem as his “fair share” which makes the discussion kind of irrelevant.  It isn’t a new problem.  It’s been going on since the invention of tax.  People avoid taxes.  The rich are better at it than the poor.

Makes it very easy to appear munificent when the hypothetical situation is never going to arise.  Not having a go at you about this btw.  Loads of people claim they’d happily pay more if the rich paid their fair share.

[craigkillie]

12 minutes ago, Left Back said:

What is your fathers opinion on this? He gets a say also.  He’s the one that earned it.

We all know btw that Lord Huffleberry is never paying what we would deem as his “fair share” which makes the discussion kind of irrelevant.  It isn’t a new problem.  It’s been going on since the invention of tax.  People avoid taxes.  The rich are better at it than the poor.

Makes it very easy to appear munificent when the hypothetical situation is never going to arise.  Not having a go at you about this btw.  Loads of people claim they’d happily pay more if the rich paid their fair share.

I would guess my dad would broadly agree with me. People will always try to avoid tax, but at the moment it's easy because the people designing the laws are not hugely bothered about stopping them. The harder you try, the more you catch, even if some still find ways around it.

The last part is basically the equivalent of the classic right wing trope of "ah if you care so much about refugees why not invite them to live with you", when the point is that people should be looked after by the state rather than having to rely on the goodness of individual people. The societal benefits of inheritance tax become possible when everyone (or at least nearly everyone takes part), it would be ineffective and pointless to do so on a voluntary basis.

[RH33]

2 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

The bold tale of the long-term unemployed person making a success of themselves is virtually impossible now. Check out the Universal Credit rules for the self-employed for a kick-off/Minimum Income Floor for a kick off. Starting your own business is a massive gamble which essentially has to pay off within 12 months, or you're fucked.

If you're unskilled and stuck in a long-term unemployment hole your choices in 99.99% of cases either staying in it with the fun-packed world of sanctions hanging over you like the Sword of Damocles, or a shite minimum wage job with dreadful conditions in some dive like Sports Direct.

 

Earn £17k, loose all housing benefit. No social housing. Rent at all time high.

[Aufc]

I don't know. But I'm making a generalised point.
People who have money to give their weans enough for a house deposit have generally already provided them a very good start in life. It's not about having a 'perfect' life, it's about being handed a massive head-start in life and then onto the property market. It's fundamentally wrong. HKHibee's kids are starting the 100m race of life about 50m ahead of a lot of their peers. There's no reason for that. It's wrong. I don't understand how anyone could sit back and consider that and be genuinely ok with that. Certainly not someone who actually has a grasp of what social justice is.
Again, it's nothing personal with HKHibee at all. He don't make the roolz etc.
'I know loads of people who...' just distorts the conversation. How wealth moves, or, more accurately doesn't move, around our society is extremely well attested to. The odd anecdotal outlier is irrelevant.

Aye I don’t really understand why it’s fundamentally wrong to help your children out with a house deposit, especially considering the current state of the market. Someone chucking a relatively small sum to their kids is pretty small fry. I agree there needs to be a fundamental change to reduce wealth inequality but it’s at a completely different level to what I mention above.

Stuff like a wealth tax (say over x number of million), proper business tax on companies like Amazon and Google and changing capital gains tax to be equivalent to income tax rates are the kind of things needed

[hk blues]

Just now, Aufc said:

Aye I don’t really understand why it’s fundamentally wrong to help your children out with a house deposit, especially considering the current state of the market. Someone chucking a relatively small sum to their kids is pretty small fry. I agree there needs to be a fundamental change to reduce wealth inequality but it’s at a completely different level to what I mention above.

Stuff like a wealth tax (say over x number of million), proper business tax on companies like Amazon and Google and changing capital gains tax to be equivalent to income tax rates are the kind of things needed

First pensioners and now ordinary working folk are in the firing line - the Tories must be loving it if they are reading these posts.  

[Scary Bear]

8 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The point is not to move HKHibee's kids (or anyone else's kids) 50m back to the start, but instead to bring the rest of society 30 or 40m forwards towards them. "The state" in its current form is almost exclusively run by and for the benefit of people who have themselves had that headstart, so it's baked into the system, but if that headstart was no longer there then there is likely to be also an attitude shift in terms of what the state is there to do.

Your family still sees the benefit of "working hard" (a questionable term in itself because there are plenty of folk running themselves into the ground just to keep their heads above the water) even without having to also reap the direct financial benefits of inheritance. My dad was the first in his family to go to university, and he ended up having more options in his life than his dad did because of that. My dad's education got him a good job as a teacher and that comfortable upbringing meant I ended up with more opportunities than he did, even if I was still in a town and school where most people didn't go to good universities. Now my own daughter will most likely have what will ultimately be a very privileged childhood and will have access to even more opportunities than me as a result - for example going to a (state) school where people regularly end up going off to study medicine, law and the likes. None of that came from any of us passing down a family fortune or inheriting property or so on.

I’m assuming it’s a bit hard and probably a bit expensive to pull everyone 30m to 40m forward. Why don’t you want to move them 50m forward? What does pulling them forward 30m to 40m look like?

You’d need to have everyone working in jobs that pay enough for a good standard of life but which also leave enough time to raise a family. This in a country where it used to be fine to live on one parents salary, but where now both parents need to work to have a decent standard of living.

You’d have to try and eradicate drink and drugs in a country that has areas of social deprivation that are badly affected. You’d have to tackle social deprivation and long term unemployment and hopelessness and try and bring people back into the workplace.

This would be happening set against a backdrop of war in Europe, Brexit complications, Covid resumption complications, the country being £2.5 trillion in debt and still running a deficit, and governments both at Westminster and Holyrood who don’t appear to be the most competent.

You’d have to do all this at the same time to bring everyone 30m to 40m forward. It seem quite a difficult task and I’m not sure where Scotrail feature in it all. Maybe if they can help by making train drivers wealthy it’ll be the first 1 metre forward.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the first generation who might actually stand to inherit a house and a bit of money. In the unlikely scenario that the house isn’t flogged to pay for their parents care home bills, it’ll be sold off and split between the remaining family. The inheritance tax will get whatever is left above the threshold which probably won’t be much if you live somewhere like Kilmarnock or Kirkcaldy.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Scary Bear

[Billy Jean King]

Inherited wealth is a fundamental pillar of Conservatism in the UK, you just need to look at the combined wealth of the current cabinet to see that. It is quite literally what they live for, to continue the family wealth through the lineage. Anyone who thinks a Conservative government is going to massively increase inheritance taxes is deluded. You can ideologise all you want, it's fantasy land stuff.

[Scary Bear]

43 minutes ago, hk blues said:

First pensioners and now ordinary working folk are in the firing line - the Tories must be loving it if they are reading these posts.  

It’s classic divide and conquer stuff.

[Boghead ranter]

Anyhoo, me and the ranters arrived in Waverley at 1305 for our 1400 train to London yesterday, only to have to join a queue like a Soviet bread handout, and only got on a train at 1530. 

Not Scotrail's fault, rather the dipstick HGV driver who crashed onto the line at Wallyford the day before.

The upside was that seat reservations were canned, so at every station down the line, I got to witness people getting on and having pointless arguments with other people "who were in their reserved seat".

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Controversial opinion but id just rather my parents spent all their money while they are alive, they gave my brother and I a good upbringing and everything so I dont expect a penny from them?

[Scary Bear]

49 minutes ago, Boghead ranter said:

Anyhoo, me and the ranters arrived in Waverley at 1305 for our 1400 train to London yesterday, only to have to join a queue like a Soviet bread handout, and only got on a train at 1530. 

Not Scotrail's fault, rather the dipstick HGV driver who crashed onto the line at Wallyford the day before.

The upside was that seat reservations were canned, so at every station down the line, I got to witness people getting on and having pointless arguments with other people "who were in their reserved seat".

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is now the Inheritance v Social Justice thread. 

48 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Controversial opinion but id just rather my parents spent all their money while they are alive, they gave my brother and I a good upbringing and everything so I dont expect a penny from them?

I also don’t expect a thing from my parents but it’s their house and money so it’s their call what they want to do with it. If they want to spunk it, fine. If they want to give it to charity, fine. If they want to see their family right, also fine. The state get what’s left.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Scary Bear

[19QOS19]

Controversial opinion but id just rather my parents spent all their money while they are alive, they gave my brother and I a good upbringing and everything so I dont expect a penny from them?

Same. My dad hasn't been in great health over the last few months and I asked my mum when he can retire. She said he reckons 10K more will be enough. I suggested they sell their house to one of those companies who let you stay until you die. Her response was that they'd have nothing to leave us. The house will be worth about 60-80K. I said I'd rather dad could get retired early than expect a handout when they die.