Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[MrJonno]

It's hardly likely that pensioners to have paid enough taxes/NI to pay for their retirement.

The biggest cause of the housing crisis problem is generally people in small villages not wanting 10000 homes built in the field next to them, tough as a country we no longer have the luxury of small villages. No shortage of town planners that want to build them.

As for defending farmers they truely are the biggest parasite on the taxpayer in the entire country, basically most of them have never actually made any money without massive subsidies and should have been left to go to the wall a long time ago (and their farms replaces with large towns)

[MrJonno]

By what right should the state be entitled to take money from people like that?

Rights are whatever the elected government say they are, unless you are into natural rights bollocks

And i didnt say a 100% tax economy I said a 100% inheritance tax above leaving a relatively small gift to children

[Tyrannical]

By what right should the state be entitled to take money from people like that?

Rights are whatever the elected government say they are, unless you are into natural rights bollocks

And i didnt say a 100% tax economy I said a 100% inheritance tax above leaving a relatively small gift to children

Why not just sell the poor into slavery. It'd be much simpler, and it's a good way to make them productive. We just have to get the law passed, because rights are whatever the elected government says they are.

[MrJonno]

Slavery was abolished generally thoughout the world as it was less productive than just paying people shit wages and telling them to look after themselves so bringing back slavery doesnt sound very likely

[mistermack]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

[MrJonno]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

Generally as economy advances slavery became less efficient of course some economies advances less slowly than others. Economic efficiency on the whole drives most social advances.

Women got the vote so that they would work harder in the factories while the men went out to war making society economically and financially stronger

[Cormac]

It's hardly likely that pensioners to have paid enough taxes/NI to pay for their retirement.

The biggest cause of the housing crisis problem is generally people in small villages not wanting 10000 homes built in the field next to them, tough as a country we no longer have the luxury of small villages. No shortage of town planners that want to build them.

As for defending farmers they truely are the biggest parasite on the taxpayer in the entire country, basically most of them have never actually made any money without massive subsidies and should have been left to go to the wall a long time ago (and their farms replaces with large towns)

As long as you are a worker, I heartily invite you to come and buy a house here, we have a large pool of houses, in the city and country at rock bottom prices.

[Cormac]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

Even communist Russia eventually copped that slavery isn't cost effective ina post industrial revolution economy, which is whybthey closed the gulags.

[Seth]

As far as I'm concerned, if a man goes out and works ten hours a day on minimum wage, and is expected to pay tax on what he earns, then inheritances should be taxed AT LEAST at the same rate as that.
Income is income, whether it comes from your parents, or an employer.

Er, it IS taxed, when the decedent earns it. Why should it be taxed again merely because he has died and given it to his heirs?

Is it desirable for all of the capital to end up in a few hands, and for everybody else to work for those lucky enough to inherit? Because that is exactly what is happening at the moment.

Which of course is utter nonsense and not at all how things actually work.

Even Abe Lincoln warned that all of the capital would end up in a few hands, and america would not stand for it. That's what's happening, but just like the banks, nothing will be done, until the system collapses.

Except that it's not happening, you just think it is in your delusional hatred of people who work harder and are more successful than you are.

[Seth]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

Even communist Russia eventually copped that slavery isn't cost effective ina post industrial revolution economy, which is whybthey closed the gulags.

Er, they mostly closed them because they'd killed off all the malcontents and counterrevolutionaries, and it was too expensive to continue to feed the rest. Mao, on the other hand, just starved his own people to death deliberately because he had a surplus of people.

[Seth]

Only the extremely rich pay inheritance tax in the US and in the UK its a bit more middle class (assets over £325k /$500k). Quite simply with the housing shortage we have in the UK it should be the norm for people to sell their 3 bedroom houses and move into smaller flats to pay for their care in their old age not to rely on pensions and welfare payments. Having the state subsidise your inheritance to your kids is appalling (and is what effectively happens at the moment)

The people you're talking about have paid:

1. For the social welfare of others for approx 45 years
2. For the healthcare of others for approx 45 years
3. For the geriatric care of others for approx 45 years

In return for this, the state promised them state pensions and good care in their retirement.

But this is typical selfish leftist thinking. Take, take, take. Despise the "rich" and the "middle-class", (who, incidentally, pay for everything!)

Just give us your money to squander, and then fuck off and die in squalor.

The main way people over the last few years have made money is buy a house, campaign to not allow anyone end to build any (green belt) , watch house shoot up in price so no one else can afford to live anywhere, then expect their kids to inherit house while claiming large amounts of money of the state.

Typical rightish thinking do fuck all work and then expect to inherit large amounts of money of your parents.

Inheritance tax should be 100% above £200k, and I would put it near that for capital gains taxes on any profits on houses even while you are alive

First off, you've not addressed my argument.

Secondly, what you've said is unmitigated bollox. In point of fact, the way corrupt people made unjustified money was to defraud elderly farmers by buying their land at agricultural prices, and then conspiring with planners to have this land rezoned as development land. The land was then flipped on at 10 times the price paid to the farmer. Sometimes the flip was already a done deal before the farmer was even paid his paltry bit.

Apart from anything else, it is Town Planners that seek to limit urban sprawl, because the wider an urban area gets, the more countryside that is eaten up, and the more expensive it is to run services such as water, electricity, sewage, public transport, healthcare, etc.

The major distorting factor in the housing market over the last 15 years was the unprecedentedly low interest rate, and the fact that a baby boom generation arrived at the same time onto the housing markets.

Property values will follow the law of supply and demand, and prices will rise and fall, (but generally will trend upwards with inflation).

AND finally - people who have some wealth aren't taking vast sums from the state. They are getting their just return for having spent 45 years of their life providing financial support to the state. What part of this don't you understand?

I can answer that last question for you: All of it.

[Cormac]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

Even communist Russia eventually copped that slavery isn't cost effective ina post industrial revolution economy, which is whybthey closed the gulags.

Er, they mostly closed them because they'd killed off all the malcontents and counterrevolutionaries, and it was too expensive to continue to feed the rest. Mao, on the other hand, just starved his own people to death deliberately because he had a surplus of people.

Read: Gulag, a History, by Anne Applebaum. The gulags were ostensibly to deal with malcontents and undesireables, but mostly they thought that slave labour would be a cheap and effective way of getting an economic leap forward. However, the project cost more than it earned, so they closed it.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, if a man goes out and works ten hours a day on minimum wage, and is expected to pay tax on what he earns, then inheritances should be taxed AT LEAST at the same rate as that.
Income is income, whether it comes from your parents, or an employer.

Er, it IS taxed, when the decedent earns it. Why should it be taxed again merely because he has died and given it to his heirs?

Income is income, whether it comes from your parents, or an employer
Try to read what you're criticising. You might not agree with it, but that's no reason to pretend it isn't there.

This argument that money has already been taxed is ludicrous.
All income has been taxed before. It's you who should have to justify why people should get a tax break when they receive inherited money. They pay if they work for it. Even if they work for their parents. Why should they not pay, when they get it for nothing?

[sandinista]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

Generally as economy advances slavery became less efficient of course some economies advances less slowly than others. Economic efficiency on the whole drives most social advances.

Women got the vote so that they would work harder in the factories while the men went out to war making society economically and financially stronger

Except there is still lots of slavery happening right now on the planet. The whole human population has increased, but there are more slaves now than ever in human history.

[sandinista]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, I have to disagree with that.

If that was true, people would have just freed their slaves, and they wouldn't have needed to outlaw it.

It was a matter of principle (eventually).

Even communist Russia eventually copped that slavery isn't cost effective ina post industrial revolution economy, which is whybthey closed the gulags.

Er, they mostly closed them because they'd killed off all the malcontents and counterrevolutionaries, and it was too expensive to continue to feed the rest. Mao, on the other hand, just starved his own people to death deliberately because he had a surplus of people.

Read: Gulag, a History, by Anne Applebaum. The gulags were ostensibly to deal with malcontents and undesireables, but mostly they thought that slave labour would be a cheap and effective way of getting an economic leap forward. However, the project cost more than it earned, so they closed it.

Like modern prisons. Only they are still open.