Election 2010 - Post Campaign Vote

[oafc0000]

I can see your point (don't agree with it but I can see it). I'm not sure having inheritance tax at 100% (I assume this is for everyone) is a good thing due to the consequences, if you can't leave anything to your kids when you die why should you save any money?

 

You should save for the reason most people save...

 

• Pay for things you want
• Holidays
• Retirement
• Rainy day

[rudemedic]

You should save for the reason most people save...

 

• Pay for things you want
• Holidays
• Retirement
• Rainy day

 

Its not just that though, for a start quite a few people have a employment pension, why save for retirement? Plus have you thought about what it would do for the demand in council housing/nursing homes (which we don't have enough of as it is). If you can't leave your house to your kids why not sell it and go live in rented accomodation and since no one will want to buy the house what happens to it? The State can buy it but then what happens- who gets it afterwards as well all know some houses are better than others why do mr so and so who is on the dole get to live in a decent house because he has loads of kids whereas mr so and so who is on minimum wage has to make do with the house he is in because he doesn't have any kids.

 

Not to mention what it would do to the economy- you keep going on about how bailing the banks out is right (not something I disagree with) but can you imagine what it would do to the housing market and therefore the economy we would go back to the middle ages in terms of the economy.

[oafc0000]

Its not just that though, for a start quite a few people have a employment pension, why save for retirement? Plus have you thought about what it would do for the demand in council housing/nursing homes (which we don't have enough of as it is). If you can't leave your house to your kids why not sell it and go live in rented accomodation and since no one will want to buy the house what happens to it? The State can buy it but then what happens- who gets it afterwards as well all know some houses are better than others why do mr so and so who is on the dole get to live in a decent house because he has loads of kids whereas mr so and so who is on minimum wage has to make do with the house he is in because he doesn't have any kids.

 

Not to mention what it would do to the economy- you keep going on about how bailing the banks out is right (not something I disagree with) but can you imagine what it would do to the housing market and therefore the economy we would go back to the middle ages in terms of the economy.

 

Anything other than locking it up / stock piling the money equals putting that money back into the economy one way or another...

 

Who gets the estate afterwards, another person will be ready to buy... It stops wealthy families stock piling property / fortunes etc... It happens...

 

And when the house becomes unsellable... because its a £6 million estate with no buyer... We knock it down and we build a couple hundred 150k house to plug the 2 million property short fall I keep hearing quoted.

 

The state takes the wealth... Puts in into school, supporting business etc... That creates jobs... People get jobs... People work there way up...

 

It does not create a total equal state, I dont want communism, but it releases wealth back into the system... and gives people something work for instead of the scraps we get from the rich table...

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[rudemedic]

Anything other than locking it up / stock piling the money equals putting that money back into the economy one way or another...

 

Who gets the estate afterwards, another person will be ready to buy... It stops wealthy families stock piling property / fortunes etc... It happens...

 

And when the house becomes unsellable... because its a £6 million estate with no buyer... We knock it down and we build a couple hundred 150k house to plug the 2 million property short fall I keep hearing quoted.

 

The state takes the wealth... Puts in into school, supporting business etc... That creates jobs... People get jobs... People work there way up...

 

It does not create a total equal state, I dont want communism, but it releases wealth back into the system... and gives people something work for instead of the scraps we get from the rich table...

 

Other people may want to buy it but loads may want to sell quickly (pick a reason) so in order to sell the house quickly they knock the price down and do one. No one is buying houses other than these anymore, so the housing market stops (bringing the economy down too), prices drop (bringing the tax with it) leaving loads of people with negative equity. Instead of paying of the mortage they say sod it the bank can have it I'll rent (thus meaning we need loads more rented accomodation). The rich will be lucky and they'll move aboard (forever taking the money out of our economy). Provided those in council houses don't want to move (they get on with their neighbours and its not a bad area, they'll be OK too). Everyone else will be up the creek without a paddle (even more than the now departed DP). Paying for nursing homes for those people who are better off in them as their house ain't worth what it was. Loads of people won't want to work hard and the moment their kids are in work will stop. Make inheritance tax 100% and you'll have government hit squads looking for people who are worth more than tuppance to kill them to get the tax to pay for everything else, but then again these are people with money so they'll be hard to find (wasting more tax money) and many will pay for private security. You and your £60k a year job (which is now only paying £10k) will be high up on that list so how's your French? You make inheritance tax 100% and Britain becomes worse than the old Eastern block within a generation, if you (I'll be out of here) are lucky. If not it becomes a peri-apocalyptic state (the French, Yanks, Spanish etc. will do quite nicely though).

[oafc0000]

Other people may want to buy it but loads may want to sell quickly (pick a reason) so in order to sell the house quickly they knock the price down and do one. No one is buying houses other than these anymore, so the housing market stops (bringing the economy down too), prices drop (bringing the tax with it) leaving loads of people with negative equity. Instead of paying of the mortage they say sod it the bank can have it I'll rent (thus meaning we need loads more rented accomodation). The rich will be lucky and they'll move aboard (forever taking the money out of our economy). Provided those in council houses don't want to move (they get on with their neighbours and its not a bad area, they'll be OK too). Everyone else will be up the creek without a paddle (even more than the now departed DP). Paying for nursing homes for those people who are better off in them as their house ain't worth what it was. Loads of people won't want to work hard and the moment their kids are in work will stop. Make inheritance tax 100% and you'll have government hit squads looking for people who are worth more than tuppance to kill them to get the tax to pay for everything else, but then again these are people with money so they'll be hard to find (wasting more tax money) and many will pay for private security. You and your £60k a year job (which is now only paying £10k) will be high up on that list so how's your French? You make inheritance tax 100% and Britain becomes worse than the old Eastern block within a generation, if you (I'll be out of here) are lucky. If not it becomes a peri-apocalyptic state (the French, Yanks, Spanish etc. will do quite nicely though).

 

 

There is too much stuff there to tackle to be frank... I don't agree with a lot of what you say above though. Government hit squads... I haven't got time to bother really...

 

If you want to make more defined and less barmy points I will reply...

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[rudemedic]

There is too much stuff there to tackle to be frank... I don't agree with a lot of what you say above though. Government hit squads... I haven't got time to bother really...

 

If you want to make more defined and less barmy points I will reply...

 

As opposed to making inheritance tax 100% (the country will be in trouble if they cap public sector pensions to £50k nevermind that). You know what we are getting so far from your original point it isn't funny.

[oafc0000]

As opposed to making inheritance tax 100%

 

Nothing barmy about it unless you think your children and there children deserve a better start in life than others by doing nothing at all but being lucky enough to be born into a better off family. That its ok for the richest families to stay rich and the poorest families to stay poor.

 

Its already hard being born into a poor family without continuing to allow other families to remain better off for generation after generation. While alternatively, other family's remain poor for generations. I know family's that fit both sides of the coin.

 

You know what we are getting so far from your original point it isn't funny.

 

This makes no sense ? What are you on about ?

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Social mobility...

 

What a crock of crap this statement is and it is used by all the partys. It works off the principle that everyone can better themselves. If you don't like your lot in life, work hard and change it.

 

Well, its a cast iron fact that only so many people can be "well off", middle class, whatever you want to call it. The aim should be to make it a proud thing to be working class again, and for people to be content with life at whatever level they find themselves.

 

We need carrot and stick in the economy, the further you go up the better you get, but we must ALWAYS ensure that those that don't make the cut have an enjoyable life. A certain standard.

 

Aka why I support NMW, aggressive inheritance tax polices, redistribution of wealth, welfare... etc...

 

The alternative is to say, you didn't make the cut now, so you are worthless and must roll in the mud... After all, its all your own fault... While you kick back, puffing on the Cuban...

 

Voting Tory is a vote to call someone worthless

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[latic12345]

Nothing barmy about it unless you think your children and there children deserve a better start in life than others by doing nothing at all but being lucky enough to be born into a better off family. That its ok for the richest families to stay rich and the poorest families to stay poor.

 

Its already hard being born into a poor family without continuing to allow other families to remain better off for generation after generation. While alternatively, other family's remain poor for generations. I know family's that fit both sides of the coin.

 

 

I've tried not to be drawn on this topic but are you being serious? If you tax all inheritance 100% you give people no incentive to save wealth for beyond their life. They therefore do not take out pensions and spend all their earnings. A lack of saving will mean less investment in the economy and too much consumtpion. In turn this will make the problems of today even more structural as we do not produce enough goods for this "consumption" to be satisfied internally. It would be absolutely crazy. Regardless of the "lucky" start some have in life, the answer surely cannot be 100% inheritance tax. The answer is to improve education. Education is the key.

 

Today you have a choice.

 

1. Vote Labour and vote for Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

2. Vote Conservative and vote for the preserve of much of the status quo minus benefits dependency.

3. Vote Lib Dem and vote for taking from the rich to enable the poor.

 

It really is that simple. Labour stand for everything I hate about politics and the left. Deep down they (and its with the argument above) they want to take from people who work hard and earn it and give it to a lot of people who frankly think society owes them a living. Conservatives are just as bad in the opposite direction. It is only the Lib Dems who have genuinely innovative, fresh thinking and who are progressive. Who believe in state investment not consumption and who can help improve this (currently) sorry country of ours.

 

Rant over

 

 

 

 

 

[oafc0000]

I've tried not to be drawn on this topic but are you being serious?

 

I know it will never happen. I do think its a good thing though.

 

If you tax all inheritance 100% you give people no incentive to save wealth for beyond their life.

 

Why do you need wealth when you are dead ?

 

They therefore do not take out pensions and spend all their earnings.

 

 

Erm no... You pension pays for retirement....

 

A lack of saving will mean less investment in the economy and too much consumtpion.

 

Erm no... It will result in spending... Which results in jobs...

 

In turn this will make the problems of today even more structural as we do not produce enough goods for this "consumption" to be satisfied internally. It would be absolutely crazy. Regardless of the "lucky" start some have in life, the answer surely cannot be 100% inheritance tax.

 

Consumption is an issue when it comes to buying crap which will just go into landfill... But its a negative way of seeing the situation. We can consume better drugs, better quality housing, pump money into green technology. There are millions of things we good do better.

 

The answer is to improve education. Education is the key.

 

Will never argue with that point of view.

[oafc0000]

It really is that simple. Labour stand for everything I hate about politics and the left. Deep down they (and its with the argument above) they want to take from people who work hard and earn it and give it to a lot of people who frankly think society owes them a living. Conservatives are just as bad in the opposite direction. It is only the Lib Dems who have genuinely innovative, fresh thinking and who are progressive. Who believe in state investment not consumption and who can help improve this (currently) sorry country of ours.

 

Rant over

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the dems get a shot... Not happening though... Not any time soon anyway...

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[rudemedic]

Nothing barmy about it unless you think your children and there children deserve a better start in life than others by doing nothing at all but being lucky enough to be born into a better off family. That its ok for the richest families to stay rich and the poorest families to stay poor.

 

Its already hard being born into a poor family without continuing to allow other families to remain better off for generation after generation. While alternatively, other family's remain poor for generations. I know family's that fit both sides of the coin.

 

 

 

This makes no sense ? What are you on about ?

 

I see your point but you haven't thought of the consequences for society. All the top professionals will work until their kids get so far and then leave (and not just their job but if they had any sense the country too). It will get to a point where the rich retire at 50 (I'm not talking millionaires here either) but the poor will have to keep going until they are 80 (when the government can pay for their pension- if they are healthy enough). The effects this brain drain will have are unknown but if you want an idea see the state of the Communist countries.

 

Your original point (since you created this topic didn't you) was about seeing how the campaign affected the polls.

 

 

[oafc0000]

I see your point but you haven't thought of the consequences for society. All the top professionals will work until their kids get so far and then leave (and not just their job but if they had any sense the country too). It will get to a point where the rich retire at 50 (I'm not talking millionaires here either) but the poor will have to keep going until they are 80 (when the government can pay for their pension- if they are healthy enough). The effects this brain drain will have are unknown but if you want an idea see the state of the Communist countries.

 

Its not a communist idea... Its a mistake to think that...

 

The scaremongering consequences are nothing like you say. Many people will see the benefit and the greedy selfish amongst us will remain to be greedy selfish regardless.

 

Its simple to legislate against such things anyway. There is already a massive amount of legislation about moving wealth out of the country.

 

Your original point (since you created this topic didn't you) was about seeing how the campaign affected the polls.

 

I will come to this in a moment, although we haven't got the same number of people voting this time.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Zorrro

[rudemedic]

Why do you need wealth when you are dead ?

 

Err you die tomorrow what happens to your newly born kid?

[oafc0000]

Err you die tomorrow what happens to your newly born kid?

 

The house is in my wifes name as well... I also have life insurance...

 

If the worse did happen and we both died then at least the state has the resources to step in. You know what happens at the moment ? Because I do, and its fecking horrible... State care is not very well funded at all

 

 

Ask yourself this, and its important... What happens when parents from a poor family die... What do there kids get ?

Edited May 6, 2010 by oafc0000

[latic12345]

Erm no... You pension pays for retirement....

 

Erm no... It will result in spending... Which results in jobs...

 

 

Investment results in jobs. Investment tends to come from borrowing. People can only borrow if other people in the economy save. I will save significantly less if all I have to do is fund my own retirement and not enable any future dependents I may have... Consumption leads to investment through increased confidence, usually financed through borrowing. Therefore, pure consumption and little or no saving means less investment...

 

 

[oafc0000]

Investment results in jobs. Investment tends to come from borrowing. People can only borrow if other people in the economy save. I will save significantly less if all I have to do is fund my own retirement and not enable any future dependents I may have... Consumption leads to investment through increased confidence, usually financed through borrowing. Therefore, pure consumption and little or no saving means less investment...

 

People would still be saving...

[latic12345]

People would still be saving...

Not in the way they do now....

[ritchie82]

Just managed to read all that, dear me, can't believe Oldham Athletic have so many thick fans they actually believe the :censored:e the Daily Mail prints.

[oafc0000]

Not in the way they do now....

 

More people would be saving more to fund here retirements...

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I've tried not to be drawn on this topic but are you being serious? If you tax all inheritance 100% you give people no incentive to save wealth for beyond their life. They therefore do not take out pensions and spend all their earnings. A lack of saving will mean less investment in the economy and too much consumtpion. In turn this will make the problems of today even more structural as we do not produce enough goods for this "consumption" to be satisfied internally. It would be absolutely crazy. Regardless of the "lucky" start some have in life, the answer surely cannot be 100% inheritance tax. The answer is to improve education. Education is the key.

 

Today you have a choice.

 

1. Vote Labour and vote for Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

2. Vote Conservative and vote for the preserve of much of the status quo minus benefits dependency.

3. Vote Lib Dem and vote for taking from the rich to enable the poor.

 

It really is that simple. Labour stand for everything I hate about politics and the left. Deep down they (and its with the argument above) they want to take from people who work hard and earn it and give it to a lot of people who frankly think society owes them a living. Conservatives are just as bad in the opposite direction. It is only the Lib Dems who have genuinely innovative, fresh thinking and who are progressive. Who believe in state investment not consumption and who can help improve this (currently) sorry country of ours.

 

Rant over

 

The Lib Dems are offering to sell their arses for anyone who'll give them the power that they singularly fail to win time after time at the ballot box. They're not offering to enable anyone to do anything. Mind you, if you voted LD in Putney, good on ya fella.

 

We need a more progressive tax system and electoral reform. Only Labour can deliver those things.

[rudemedic]

The house is in my wifes name as well... I also have life insurance...

 

If the worse did happen and we both died then at least the state has the resources to step in. You know what happens at the moment ? Because I do, and its fecking horrible... State care is not very well funded at all

 

 

Ask yourself this, and its important... What happens when parents from a poor family die... What do there kids get ?

 

Life Insurance will become a lot harder to get if inheritance tax is 100%. I'd agree state care is not very nice but IMO it will get worse if inheritance tax is 100%. The kids of a poor family (i.e. ones who don't own their own home)- they get nowt bar some savings and possible insurance to cover death duties and funeral expenses. Everyone else (so every home owner in the country) will be worse off. If you are going to be worse off if you own a home than if you rent one- you will stop owning homes. No-one takes out any mortages... banks collapse. People save less (why buy things you don't want and you can't give it to your kids) banks collapse. Every bank collapsed- potential anarchy (if not why save the ones we did). I feel like I'm going round in circles, I swear I made this point a bit ago.

[rudemedic]

Blah blah... electoral reform. Only Labour can deliver those things.

Only Labour can deliver Electoral reform- yeah you maybe right. But if I was waiting 13 years for something to be delivered I'd look for a new delivery company.

 

[oafc0000]

Life Insurance will become a lot harder to get if inheritance tax is 100%. I'd agree state care is not very nice but IMO it will get worse if inheritance tax is 100%. The kids of a poor family (i.e. ones who don't own their own home)- they get nowt bar some savings and possible insurance to cover death duties and funeral expenses. Everyone else (so every home owner in the country) will be worse off. If you are going to be worse off if you own a home than if you rent one- you will stop owning homes. No-one takes out any mortages... banks collapse. People save less (why buy things you don't want and you can't give it to your kids) banks collapse. Every bank collapsed- potential anarchy (if not why save the ones we did). I feel like I'm going round in circles, I swear I made this point a bit ago.

 

 

omg.. Hit squads... Banking collapse... You keep going in circles of wildness

 

Fancy writing for the Daily Mail. I don't accept any of your points.

 

Should we move on to election issues as this is a side issue and nothing to do with tonights election.

[oafc0000]

Only Labour can deliver Electoral reform- yeah you maybe right. But if I was waiting 13 years for something to be delivered I'd look for a new delivery company.

 

lol

 

 

Fair comment... I don't think they can get out of it this time though.