Jump to content

Scotrail


ScottR96

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Yasss!!

I'll pass on this information to my friend.

I'd my mate would much prefer my his alcoholics allowance to be paid in weekly tranches of being left the f**k alone when rough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

How many pints a week do you need to neck before you can phone up the DWP and demand your "alcoholics allowance"?

Asking for a friend.

Only a few. Just make sure to leave your free DWP car at home when you go to spend it.

Edited by Patrick Noubissie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Ervin H Burrell said:

Enjoying the discourse.

Simmering away nicely. Should be boiling over just in time for Super Sunday!

Edit: is it no longer fashionable to complain about junkies getting benefits to sit about and take methadone? What did the alkies do to leapfrog them in the easy target table?

Edited by BFTD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, HK Hibee said:

Not sure I follow this. There is currently Inheritance Tax in place in UK so really sure what you mean - if I die I expect my kids will need to pay tax on what I leave them. How do the not pay taxes?

The majority of people who inherit wealth receive it untaxed in the UK, owing to the ridiculously high tax threshold and dodgy avoidance strategies.

Inheritance tax should be applied to all inherited wealth and dodgers placed under a guillotine to consider the consequences of their actions.

Quote

personally I would focus more on closing loopholes for the folk who can afford to take advantage of those loopholes and raising corporate and income tax. 

No, 'closing tax loopholes' is just a lazy cop-out. There's no evidence that doing this alone would either solve the UK's current problems, nor create a inherently less unequal society. The structure of taxation has to be changed fundamentally to do both. 

Income is distributed much more equally in the UK - in relative terms - than wealth and so targeting the former is entirely the wrong approach to achieving a more equitable society. That's not open to interpretation - it's a straightforward fact.

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many pints a week do you need to neck before you can phone up the DWP and demand your "alcoholics allowance"?
Asking for a friend.
Presumably the same number that thick dribbling, mintering c**t has consumed this evening
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I intend to be buried with all my valuables and precious goods, so that when I get dug up in 2000 years future archeologists will think I was some sort of chieften.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, HK Hibee said:

Splitting hairs really. What is left after tax will go to my kids so same outcome.

It isn’t splitting hairs at all.  Lets imagine your estate has a taxable liability of £1m.  This means your estate is due £400k.  The tax liability gets settled as part of probate instead of your inheritors having to shell out £400k up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue seems to be what is the level of tax we should pay.  I think we probably pay too little collectively in this country but what [mention=11540]virginton[/mention]proposed is too much.  This is a reasonable debate with no right answers  tbh there is probably a right answer economically ( ie maximising the tax take) and a different answer politically ( ie what do people want to pay and receive  from the government).  Part of the problem is that politics is so populist/divisive that we dont really have that debate. 
 
Also as a complete aside I sat down on the train earlier with a table to myself and as we pulled out of Waverley a bloke with an Alsatian sat at the table across the aisle - the dog spent most of the journey on the table slavering and eyeing me up.  Thumbs down to Scotrail  
 
 
The real issue is that the ultra rich pay far too little in taxes whilst those in the middle have to pick up the bill.

A fairer inheritance tax would be one that got rid of all the allowances and reliefs and had progressive rates - where the tax rate rose with the level of estate.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Left Back said:

They haven’t cottoned onto it at all.  If it was that easy they’d carry on borrowing and give everyone everything they’ve ever dreamed of.

Unfortunately the lenders might want some of it back at some point though.  Selfish c***s.  Must be Tories.

I remember reading a while back that because interest rates/inflation was so low that now was the time to be borrowing unlimited trillions to fix every possible issue in society.  That expert theory has clearly stood the test of time given the state of the debt repayments now.

We have carried on borrowing. National debt at the end of 2021 was around £2.5 Trillion and rising. I don’t have everything I’ve ever dreamed of.

Despite this, if there was a war tomorrow, we would go into further debt to pay for it. Possibly raise taxes too. We seem to only find money to pay for nasty things rather than nice things. Not sure why that is. When we want something nice we get told there’s no magic money tree. Probably because we’ve run up a huge debt saving banks, sorting out Covid and the likes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Very little wealth is ‘unearned’.  Any wealth I have accumulated I have been taxed on including what I earned to buy my house which will go to my kids when I die.  In fairness I got tax relief on my pension contributions, so there is that.

Away to f**k, huge amount of wealth is unearned.   Buy house, be lucky that the price booms for example.    I’m not loaded by any stretch but I’m incredibly fortunate to be where I am financially, I had a home to live in in my teens/ early 20s for that whilst I payed digs was nothing like rent,  that helped massively to help me save for a mortgage , and paying a mortgage instead of renting in the long term will nearly certainly make me significantly better off.   I did absolutely f**k all to earn that benefit compared someone starting the same job at the same age as me.   It’s not exactly daddy paying for my eton/Oxford education and letting me stay at his penthouse whilst I work the internship his mate gave me, but it’s still a massive benefit given through nothing other than luck.

1 hour ago, HK Hibee said:

So what?

My folks worked hard to ensure when I got to 21 that I was in a better position then they were at the same age and instilled in me the same desire for my kids. I want them to do better than me and part of that is giving them a good head start. 
 

I bet most of the posters on here feel the same and as long as you pay the appropriate taxes etc then what is the problem with families bettering themselves each generation  
 

The likes of you, me and every other poster on P&B passing on what we have earned to our kids is not the cause of the massive wealth gap in this country.  

So what if your kids or my kids have some unearned wealth?  That is how life should work - each generation bettering the last. 

That’s the fucking point VT is making, well-off guy gives kids a head start, kids have better chance of being millionaires, millionaires gives their kids a head start, kids have a better chance of being billionaires.   The kids who don’t get the leg up? Well their stuck in the Sams cycle, the gap widens.

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

It’s £325,000, total value of estate with some exemptions if you leave money to your spouse or a charity.

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax
 

 

Buy the time barely a competent account/solicitor gets their hands on it it’s quickly up to a million, before any dodgy schemes come in.

 

Edited by parsforlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See instead of raising taxes (although I agree rich people people don't pay nearly enough) could we just get a government that doesn't swindle all our money away to their pals and terrible projects like HS2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scary Bear said:

We have carried on borrowing. National debt at the end of 2021 was around £2.5 Trillion and rising. I don’t have everything I’ve ever dreamed of.

Despite this, if there was a war tomorrow, we would go into further debt to pay for it. Possibly raise taxes too. We seem to only find money to pay for nasty things rather than nice things. Not sure why that is. When we want something nice we get told there’s no magic money tree. Probably because we’ve run up a huge debt saving banks, sorting out Covid and the likes. 

Is it £37bn so far for cost of living payments?  I could be wrong with that number but whatever it is it’s a big number.

Maybe you could take a more objective view instead of the seemingly entrenched position that almost every poster on this site seems to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

The majority of people who inherit wealth receive it untaxed in the UK, owing to the ridiculously high tax threshold and dodgy avoidance strategies.

Inheritance tax should be applied to all inherited wealth and dodgers placed under a guillotine to consider the consequences of their actions.

No, 'closing tax loopholes' is just a lazy cop-out. There's no evidence that doing this alone would either solve the UK's current problems, nor create a inherently less unequal society. The structure of taxation has to be changed fundamentally to do both. 

Income is distributed much more equally in the UK - in relative terms - than wealth and so targeting the former is entirely the wrong approach to achieving a more equitable society. That's not open to interpretation - it's a straightforward fact.

So you advocate applying IHT to all wealth but closing loopholes is a cop out?  When I talk about closing loopholes I mean getting closer to straightforward application of a rate to wealth. Same thing you are advocating?  
 

I think we both agree there is a problem but disagree on the extent (ie the tax rate) needed to solve it.  I don’t mind disagreeing on this type of thing but you don’t need to get quite so aggro (effectively telling me to f**k off to Abu Dhabi)
 

PS. Don’t say something is a straightforward fact without at least quoting a statistic to back it up.  

 

And to keep it on topic trains are best way to travel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

 

That’s the fucking point VT is making, well-off guy gives kids a head start, kids have better chance of being millionaires, millionaires gives their kids a head start, kids have a better chance of being billionaires.   The kids who don’t get the leg up? Well their stuck in the Sams cycle, the gap widens.

Buy the time barely a competent account/solicitor gets their hands on it it’s quickly up to a million, before any dodgy schemes come in.

 

I think the point I am trying to make which is being lost is that for the vast majority of us it isn’t about millionaires being billionaires but about your kids and my kids having money for a deposit on a house.  

I am all for taxing the millionaires but you also need to have some incentive that a reasonable amount of wealth gets passed on from generation to generation. Otherwise why fucking bother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not something I've really thought about, but having read the last few pages I reckon a progressive tax rate for estates would be fair.

At one end 95% taken off Richard Branson's is still going to leave his family flush.

Old Betty with 5 grand saved, possibly while going without something else enjoyable in life, like a few holidays, should be able to give that away how she see's fit.

Obviously the issue then becomes where the 10% , 20% etc rates of estate tax come in, and people will argue based on their own self interest largely.

Edited by Halbeath Raith Rover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2008 the banks were bailed out with £500Billion. There were bankers who probably should have faced criminal charges. b*****ds.

Trident costs Billions and so will it’s replacement unless we can secure independence.

HS2 costs Billions and will no doubt over run and cost even more.

Crossrail cost £20Billion. There are so many projects around London that cost way too much.

Palace of Westminster could cost £20Billion. 

Let’s not get started on the expenses associated with MPs and the House of Lords.

Get a few of those royal palaces sold off and many of the royalty hangers on off the payroll.

Rant over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...