Why IHT is just right, and for moral reasons

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Reading this article has not only convinced me more than ever that it must remain in perpetuity , but that we should have higher bands in place as well
Money and drugs: the lethal cocktail for Eva Rausing - Telegraph

Too munch money especially at a young age is invariably the ruination of some people who just become idle monsters.I would like to see a 60% tax band at 1mill and maybe an 80% at 2mill so that this that inherit would still have to work during their adult lives and contribute something meaningful to the wider community.Back in the days of empire these spoilt rich creatures were called "remitance people" who were sent off to live in the colonies with a remittance and thus spare their families shame and embarrassment because of their dodgy lifestyles.That no longer happens for obvious reasons which is why the likes of this odious couple are/were in our midst.I met one once - jamie Blandford , a stuffed up , arrogant and unpleasant human being if ever I saw one.My belief is that young people from rich families should be sent to juvenile boot camps for 2 months of the year where they can learn the meaning of being humble ,being reasonable and learning to stand on their own two feet without relying on the wealth created by their fore bearers
 

Ian J

Banned
I'm sure that your grip on reality gets more and more tenuous by the day :D

If the answer to drug addiction by the wealthy is to increase taxes I guess that drug addicts on benefits should be sent to forced labour camps
 

Ed Selley

AVF Reviewer
In other news; a childless man supports inheritance tax. Although he remains less keen about the things that might get at him while he's alive
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
I'm sure that your grip on reality gets more and more tenuous by the day :D

If the answer to drug addiction by the wealthy is to increase taxes I guess that drug addicts on benefits should be sent to forced labour camps

i am saying life is made far too easy for them on the back of their families wealth and it is that which will drive to drugs as they lead meaning less lives.It actually tends to be more difficult for them to kick the drug habit than someone from a poor background simply because they never run out of money.Boot camps would be a good idea for them when they growing up.
 

NewMan

Well-known Member
My belief is that young people from rich families should be sent to juvenile boot camps for 2 months of the year where they can learn the meaning of being humble ,being reasonable and learning to stand on their own two feet without relying on the wealth created by their fore bearers

My belief is that young people from poor families should be sent to juvenile boot camps for 2 months of the year where they can learn the meaning of being respectful, being responsible for their actions and learning to stand on their own two feet without relying on stabbing other kids for their trainers.

See? Stupid stereotyping of a specific social group can work both ways. :rolleyes:
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
My belief is that young people from poor families should be sent to juvenile boot camps for 2 months of the year where they can learn the meaning of being respectful, being responsible for their actions and learning to stand on their own two feet without relying on stabbing other kids for their trainers.
I don't have problem with that either actually
 

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
Reading this article has not only convinced me more than ever that it must remain in perpetuity , but that we should have higher bands in place as well
Money and drugs: the lethal cocktail for Eva Rausing - Telegraph

Too munch money especially at a young age is invariably the ruination of some people who just become idle monsters.I would like to see a 60% tax band at 1mill and maybe an 80% at 2mill so that this that inherit would still have to work during their adult lives and contribute something meaningful to the wider community.Back in the days of empire these spoilt rich creatures were called "remitance people" who were sent off to live in the colonies with a remittance and thus spare their families shame and embarrassment because of their dodgy lifestyles.That no longer happens for obvious reasons which is why the likes of this odious couple are/were in our midst.I met one once - jamie Blandford , a stuffed up , arrogant and unpleasant human being if ever I saw one.My belief is that young people from rich families should be sent to juvenile boot camps for 2 months of the year where they can learn the meaning of being humble ,being reasonable and learning to stand on their own two feet without relying on the wealth created by their fore bearers

Oh *** I wish somebody would send you to a boot camp, I'm off the lobby for it and I have a nice fat cheque book.

They aren't rich creatures, they are people with the same worries and fears that everyone else has. The money didn't make it better or worse. They could buy drugs instead of stealing to buy drugs that's all.
 

sidicks

Banned
la gran siete said:
Reading this article has not only convinced me more than ever that it must remain in perpetuity , but that we should have higher bands in place as well
Money and drugs: the lethal cocktail for Eva Rausing - Telegraph

Too munch money especially at a young age is invariably the ruination of some people who just become idle monsters.I would like to see a 60% tax band at 1mill and maybe an 80% at 2mill so that this that inherit would still have to work during their adult lives and contribute something meaningful to the wider community.Back in the days of empire these spoilt rich creatures were called "remitance people" who were sent off to live in the colonies with a remittance and thus spare their families shame and embarrassment because of their dodgy lifestyles.That no longer happens for obvious reasons which is why the likes of this odious couple are/were in our midst.I met one once - jamie Blandford , a stuffed up , arrogant and unpleasant human being if ever I saw one.My belief is that young people from rich families should be sent to juvenile boot camps for 2 months of the year where they can learn the meaning of being humble ,being reasonable and learning to stand on their own two feet without relying on the wealth created by their fore bearers

As long as you've read the article with an open mind and considered the arguments for and against without any form of prejudice then it's all we can ask.

Oh, wait....
:suicide:
 

Jamezinho

Distinguished Member
Another spite and envy thread. Great.
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
Its a fair question, why should anyone be allowed to become rich and powerful just through some accident of birth? I know its an absolutely fundamental thing, every parent wants the very best for their kids and to give them a great start in life, thats just normal. But when some dumb-ass loser with the brains and charisma of a slug become rich, powerful, influential, and the rest just through who his/her parents were, you have to ask where is the justice?

I don't have any problem with wealth and influence that have been fairly gained, but when the likes of Robert Maxwells' kids, the Murdoch off-spring, this poor woman, who obviously couldn't cope and a myriad of other examples gain wealth and influence, it is just plain bad news.
 

andyparksy

Well-known Member
But when some dumb-ass loser with the brains and charisma of a slug become rich, powerful, influential, and the rest just through who his/her parents were, you have to ask where is the justice?


Please remember wealth is relative....... how many people in the world would look at whatever I leave to my kids and think "there is no justice, what have they done to deserve that and don't work anywhere near as hard as I do"

Might not be fair that they benifit, but would not be right to make them suffer either.

The only argument left then would be to say that anybody that is lazy and worthless should be sent to boot camp, but please leave that bout of winging for another thread.
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
Might not be fair that they benifit, but would not be right to make them suffer either.

I think the woman whose death was at the root of this thread might, with hindsight, disagree. She seems to have led a mostly pointless life, where the main event each day was a drugs habit. Without the enormous wealth she inherited, maybe she would have led a useful and meaningful existence? And not suffered the humiliation of drug dependancy and early death? I don't know for sure. I'm neither one of the idle rich nor a drug addict.
 

karkus30

Banned
johntheexpat said:
Its a fair question, why should anyone be allowed to become rich and powerful just through some accident of birth? I know its an absolutely fundamental thing, every parent wants the very best for their kids and to give them a great start in life, thats just normal. But when some dumb-ass loser with the brains and charisma of a slug become rich, powerful, influential, and the rest just through who his/her parents were, you have to ask where is the justice?

I don't have any problem with wealth and influence that have been fairly gained, but when the likes of Robert Maxwells' kids, the Murdoch off-spring, this poor woman, who obviously couldn't cope and a myriad of other examples gain wealth and influence, it is just plain bad news.

Well, it's a big question. Now you have to answer it, because it's far from simple.

The first question should always be: did they earn their fortune by lawful means ?

By lawful I mean common law and not legalise.

For instance the Norman Barons stole land by conquest. If you look at London it is owned by half a dozen ancestors of these Barons. The land was stolen from those who lived and worked on it.

http://mises.org/daily/2473/. This article might prove interesting.

This is redistribution, not of wealth, but of land. Wealth then might also be redistributed if it is proven to have been obtained by unlawful means.

That is the difference I have with LGS who believes everyone who has money should have it taken from them by force to be re distributed. I believe that only those who obtained their property unlawfully should have it returned to those that now occupy it. LGS believes in a right to roam. I also believe in that, but with the proviso that those causing damage are required to pay compensation. That's not something that the right to roam really accept, they just want their rights and sod everyone else like the farmers, game keepers, foresters etc.
 
Last edited:

kav

Distinguished Member
I think the woman whose death was at the root of this thread might, with hindsight, disagree. She seems to have led a mostly pointless life, where the main event each day was a drugs habit. Without the enormous wealth she inherited, maybe she would have led a useful and meaningful existence? And not suffered the humiliation of drug dependancy and early death? I don't know for sure. I'm neither one of the idle rich nor a drug addict.

Regardless of wealth though, some people are simply the architects of their own downfall. For example, the article indicates that this unfortunate woman's husband is a bit of a waster, but that his two sisters are both highly successful. So what went wrong there? The parents would seem to have done their best by their children.

I went to school, and subsequently university, with a very intelligent fellow who also happened to be a complete nutcase. He was always the one getting sent to the principal's office for disrupting the class, and yet he got top marks in every exam he sat, and ended up doing Medicine at university. He got through his second year at university, and then began to get into hard drugs in a serious way - far beyond the dabbling that many of us engaged in during that period of our lives.

Fast-forward to today and he has been living on the streets for more than a decade, his sole objective to destroy himself with drink and drugs one day at a time. He purposely harasses people as getting thrown in a cell means a bed for a night or longer. On the odd occasion I meet him I stop and chat and we reminisce about the old days and I give him a few quid, which you know he's either going to **** against the wall or inject. His brother, on the other hand, who was a year ahead of us at school, has gone on to have a successful, yet ununremarkable life.

Is there anything that we, his friends, his brother, or his parents, could have done, to change his path? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's an incredibly complex question that doesn't deserve glib, throwaway answers like those given in the OP. Money is only a minor factor for such unfortunate, broken people being the way they are. This thread is just another opportunity for LGS to purvey his warped brand of socialism.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
That is the difference I have with Mike TV who believes everyone who has money should have it taken from them by force to be re distributed. I believe that only those who obtained their property unlawfully should have it returned to those that now occupy it. Mike believes in a right to roam. I also believe in that, but with the proviso that those causing damage are required to pay compensation. That's not something that the right to roam really accept, they just want their rights and sod everyone else like the farmers, game keepers, foresters etc.

I think you are confusing MikeTV with LGS, which is surprising because their posting style is very differrent.

The way i see it is you are the temporary custodian of said land for which you are responsible in return you get to live on it.Remember all sorts of creatures make use of "your land" without you being able to do anything about it,so nature doesnt recognise your "ownership".Some say we actually belong to the land to where we shall return one day earth to earth ashes to ashes.Ownership is just a human concept.


I see ownership as a fundamental tennet of civilised society. What's mine is mine, not yours. That path leads to anarchy. What right do you have to my property? (as if I had any property ;) ).

I think this all started with the doomsday book, and long may it continue, thank you very much. Hands off my land! ;)
 
Last edited:

MikeTV

Well-known Member
That is the difference I have with Mike TV who believes everyone who has money should have it taken from them by force to be re distributed.
What are you talking about? I most certainly do not!! I believe people should pay their taxes. I think you'll find most people, other than perhaps Jimmy Carr and wealthy bankers, feel the same way.
I believe that only those who obtained their property unlawfully should have it returned to those that now occupy it.
I believe people who obtain property unlawfully should have it taken away. As do the courts of this country.
Mike believes in a right to roam.
What? I believe you have the right to roam around your neighbourhood on a summer's evening, if you like. That's about the only kind of roaming I believe in.

:suicide:
 

karkus30

Banned
MikeTV said:
What are you talking about? I most certainly do not!! I believe people should pay their taxes. I think you'll find most people, other than perhaps Jimmy Carr and wealthy bankers, feel the same way.
I believe people who obtain property unlawfully should have it taken away. As do the courts of this country.

What? I believe you have the right to roam around your neighbourhood on a summer's evening, if you like. That's about the only kind of roaming I believe in.

:suicide:

Mike, apologies I keep doing that.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
Its a fair question, why should anyone be allowed to become rich and powerful just through some accident of birth?

Or looking at it another way, why shouldn't children benefit from the hard work of their parents?

If you take this away, then why would anyone bother trying to work hard for themselves and their families?
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
Its a fair question, why should anyone be allowed to become rich and powerful just through some accident of birth? I know its an absolutely fundamental thing, every parent wants the very best for their kids and to give them a great start in life, thats just normal. But when some dumb-ass loser with the brains and charisma of a slug become rich, powerful, influential, and the rest just through who his/her parents were, you have to ask where is the justice?

I don't have any problem with wealth and influence that have been fairly gained, but when the likes of Robert Maxwells' kids, the Murdoch off-spring, this poor woman, who obviously couldn't cope and a myriad of other examples gain wealth and influence, it is just plain bad news.
I agree. I am starting wonder if perhaps a fairer solution would be some kind of property tax. Obviously the practical implications of such a tax system are mind boggling. But perhaps property should be regarded as temporary custodianship - the right to which erodes over time, through taxation.

After all, why should someone live in a stately mansion today, simply because some ancestor got lucky centuries ago? Isn't our nations property a finite resource that ultimate belongs to the entire nation?

I don't know - the idea needs some more work...;)
 

karkus30

Banned
MikeTV said:
I agree. I am starting wonder if perhaps a fairer solution would be some kind of property tax. Obviously the practical implications of such a tax system are mind boggling. But perhaps property should be regarded as temporary custodianship - the right to which erodes over time, through taxation.

After all, why should someone live in a stately mansion today, simply because some ancestor got lucky centuries ago? Isn't our nations property a finite resource that ultimate belongs to the entire nation?

I don't know - the idea needs some more work...;)

LOL no more bloody tax, it just penalises the poor.

The Diggers tried to restore things to the rightful owners, but we're wiped out.

You said previously you would have unlawful property removed from those who took it. In many cases the original owners were peasants.

Your idea of property belonging to the whole nation is fatally flawed. Under that ruling I could steal your wallet and you couldn't do anything about it. I would just state that it belonged as much to me as it does to you. Then you would have to contend with the idea that the whole world is owned by everyone in the world. Anyway I'm sure you can see where that would lead.

Instead the property belonging to those that stole it should be returned to those who once held freehold over it. So, in London, people like the Duke of Westminster would no longer hold the lease to the Land if it was shown he had been granted it by those who stole it by force from the original owners. Anything acquired by the profits illegal obtained would also be forfeit. You can imagine how much support that would get in the house of commons. Have a read of the article I previously posted, it will definitely chime with your ideals.
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
LOL no more bloody tax, it just penalises the poor.
Wealth taxes don't, which is what I am proposing.
The Diggers tried to restore things to the rightful owners, but we're wiped out.

You said previously you would have unlawful property removed from those who took it. In many cases the original owners were peasants.
By definition, a peasant doesn't own property. Then they'd be a property owner, not a peasant.
Your idea of property belonging to the whole nation is fatally flawed.
Try telling that to the French and Americans, who have exactly this kind of tax.
Under that ruling I could steal your wallet and you couldn't do anything about it. I would just state that it belonged as much to me as it does to you. Then you would have to contend with the idea that the whole world is owned by everyone in the world. Anyway I'm sure you can see where that would lead.
A "wallet" is a bad example because I'm not proposing taxing wallet ownership. It's land and buildings that I'm talking about when I say "property". I thought that was obvious. Anyway, you wouldn't be able to take my wallet, because I am it's custodian - and so I have legal possession. Wallet theft would still be a crime.
Instead the property belonging to those that stole it should be returned to those who once held freehold over it. So, in London, people like the Duke of Westminster would no longer hold the lease to the Land if it was shown he had been granted it by those who stole it by force from the original owners.
Whose stealing what by force? Nobody would be taking the Duke of Westminster's property away. He'd just be required to pay taxes. If he couldn't afford the tax, he'd have to sell it (or part of it).
Anything acquired by the profits illegal obtained would also be forfeit.
I don't understand.
You can imagine how much support that would get in the house of commons. Have a read of the article I previously posted, it will definitely chime with your ideals.
Ok, I'll have a look. I don't think it will get much support among the most wealthy! Although Donald Trump proposed a wealth tax in the US, so who knows. But that's not really the point.
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
Or looking at it another way, why shouldn't children benefit from the hard work of their parents?

If you take this away, then why would anyone bother trying to work hard for themselves and their families?
But isn't that just an argument against income tax, rather than wealth tax - ie. the harder you work, the more tax you're going to have pay.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Q Acoustics Q3030i, Humax Aura, Roku Streambar & WandaVision Reviews and more...

Latest News

What's new on Disney+ UK for February 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Focal releases 1000 Series integrated speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Klipsch announces ProMedia 2.1 BT speaker set
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
No Time to Die gets pushed to 8th Oct 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF announces KC62 subwoofer with new Uni-Core technology
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom