On 17/02/2026 16:42, Simon Simple wrote:
On 17/02/2026 13:50, Andrew wrote:
Because Blair actuallyThe problem is that house prices and rents are too high and
that is all down to overpopulation and greed.
Rents are high because house prices are high.-a Why let a house for
less than your return from some savings account after selling it?
House prices are high because it's pretty much a free market.-a It's
pretty much a free market because there's no low cost state-owned
housing as competition nowadays.
Because Thatcher.-a (And overpopulation.)
He made a fortune out of insider trading on property.
On 17/02/2026 05:05 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Secondly, it's easy to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point
of abandoning the principle. So while I accept that mobilising
redistribution would be an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
-a-aHow about a 40% inheritance tax ?
For what purpose, other than to deliberately downgrade the value of what one's children can inherit?
On 17/02/2026 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 05:05 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Secondly, it's easy to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point
of abandoning the principle. So while I accept that mobilising
redistribution would be an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
-a-aHow about a 40% inheritance tax ?
For what purpose, other than to deliberately downgrade the value of
what one's children can inherit?
-aTo discuss whether 'an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought' is need to adopt the principle of redistributing
half of the top 10%'s wealth; whether any developed country with such a
tax has a fairer distribution of wealth than the UK; whether there are unexpected consequences of the attempted redistribution ...
On 17/02/2026 08:55 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 05:05 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Secondly, it's easy to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point
of abandoning the principle. So while I accept that mobilising
redistribution would be an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
-a-aHow about a 40% inheritance tax ?
For what purpose, other than to deliberately downgrade the value of what >>> one's children can inherit?
-a-aTo discuss whether 'an enormous technical exercise needing considerable >> thought' is need to adopt the principle of redistributing half of the top >> 10%'s wealth; whether any developed country with such a tax has a fairer
distribution of wealth than the UK; whether there are unexpected
consequences of the attempted redistribution ...
Would your suggested "40%" rule only affect the "top 10%" of the population?
And anyway, what justification could there be for the confiscation of the assets of anyone who has gained them lawfully?
On 17/02/2026 05:05 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Most people wouldn't be affected - it's from the very rich
(say -u20m+, for the sake of discussion) to the relatively poor.
FWIW if I was in charge I'd probably rehouse the rich post-
liquidation of assets. Possibly.
-a-aWho would buy a -u10m property which you've just taken from the
previous owner?
Secondly, it's easy to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point
of abandoning the principle. So while I accept that mobilising
redistribution would be an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
-a-aHow about a 40% inheritance tax ?
For what purpose, other than to deliberately downgrade the value of what one's children can inherit?
Why should people on the state pension have to rely on means tested benefits? What if they have (modest) savings? Do they have to squanderYes.
them so they can qualify?
Means tested benefits are for "poor" people.
Why should people who wouldn't regard themselves as poor have to rely on handouts?
On 17/02/2026 11:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/02/2026 13:14, Andrew wrote:
Why should a pensioner get a stonking (unearned) increase in state
pension and then be excused paying tax on the small amount because
it has exceeded the personal allowance, whereas a working person
is being hit with increased NI contributions (directly or indirectly
via increased taxation on the employer) ?.
The solution is simple. Get rid of the triple lock and do not
allow the state pension to exceed the personal allowance.
QED if the personal allowance is frozen, so should the state
pension be.
As I said before, there's no way anyone who pays rent can live on the
state pension.
In which case housing benefit would pay the rent anyway and if
pension credit was claimed loads more freebies would be on
offer.
For most people the state pension pays out far more than they
ever paid in via NI and net tax during their lives.
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Most people wouldn't
be affected - it's from the very rich (say -u20m+, for the sake of discussion)
to the relatively poor. FWIW if I was in charge I'd probably rehouse the rich
post-liquidation of assets. Possibly.
Who would buy a -u10m property which you've just taken from the previous owner?
Secondly, it's easy
to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point of abandoning the principle. So
while I accept that mobilising redistribution would be an enormous technical >> exercise needing considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
How about a 40% inheritance tax ?
On 17/02/2026 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 05:05 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Most people wouldn't be affected - it's from the very rich
(say -u20m+, for the sake of discussion) to the relatively poor.
FWIW if I was in charge I'd probably rehouse the rich post-
liquidation of assets. Possibly.
Who would buy a -u10m property which you've just taken from the
previous owner?
Secondly, it's easy to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point
of abandoning the principle. So while I accept that mobilising
redistribution would be an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
How about a 40% inheritance tax ?
For what purpose, other than to deliberately downgrade the value of what
one's children can inherit?
All property is theft. So the government steals it back
Normal communism
On 18 Feb 2026 at 11:51:06 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/02/2026 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2026 05:05 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2026 15:11, RJH wrote:
Most people wouldn't be affected - it's from the very rich
(say -u20m+, for the sake of discussion) to the relatively poor.
FWIW if I was in charge I'd probably rehouse the rich post-
liquidation of assets. Possibly.
Who would buy a -u10m property which you've just taken from the
previous owner?
Secondly, it's easy to get bogged down with what-ifs to the point
of abandoning the principle. So while I accept that mobilising
redistribution would be an enormous technical exercise needing
considerable thought, that's not a good enough reason not to
do it.
How about a 40% inheritance tax ?
For what purpose, other than to deliberately downgrade the value of what >>> one's children can inherit?
All property is theft. So the government steals it back
Normal communism
That's called socialism - the bridge between capitialism ending and whatever follows.
Communism is the point at which the people take possession from the state - hence 'commune'. It remains a theory - happened in parts (Cuba for example) but never wholesale. Capitalism's just too resilient right now.
I'd support 100% inheritance tax in the UK. Inheritance is set to be the single largest cause of inequality in the UK over the next 30 years.
On 18/02/2026 16:53, RJH wrote:
I'd support 100% inheritance tax in the UK. Inheritance is set to be the
single largest cause of inequality in the UK over the next 30 years.
Potential consequences again.
I know someone who was renting has effectively inherited the parents
house. Previously, and close to retirement with a small pension on top
of the state pension, the state probably would have to provide housing benefit etc.-a Now as a house owner the eligibility for extra benefits no longer applies.
The vast majority of those inheriting are not the super rich!-a The super rich probably have already put in place other legal methods of
transferring wealth.
Why should people on the state pension have to rely on means tested benefits? What if they have (modest) savings? Do they have to squander
them so they can qualify? Means tested benefits are for "poor" people.
Why should people who wouldn't regard themselves as poor have to rely on handouts?
On 15/02/2026 22:41, JNugent wrote:
On 14/02/2026 07:23 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2026 18:12, JNugent wrote:
On 14/02/2026 10:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Sadly it seems to be
On 14/02/2026 09:58, RJH wrote:
On 14 Feb 2026 at 08:14:54 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2026 16:26, RJH wrote:
Sounds ominous - as if they're proposing to freeze the Personal >>>>>>>> Allownance for a while yet.
They are having to learn that waving a magic socialist wand does not >>>>>>> create wealth.
Then UK has plentiful wealth. No need to wave anything - fairly
redistribute and you're done.
Bless!
And are busy taking it from people who are too old to
complain and wouldn't vote for them anyway.
That's a very high risk assumption.
Not really. Not many people are still voting for them at all.
Just the people who are affluent but think they come from the
'working class'
Whatever one's later / current state of affluence, the question of
into which social class one was born or within which one was raised
is surely not a matter requiring much in the way of empirical judgment? >>>>
Is Starmer working class?
No. AIUI, his father was not a toolmaker as that term is usually
understood.
His father owned an engineering business that was a toolmakers.
Slight difference.
For those of a certain age who resent having to pay tax on their
pensions and other income, there currently is a petition to parliament
to double the state pensioners tax-free allowance. Link below to sign, current stands at 105,314 signatories.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/740671
On 13/02/2026 12:45, No mail wrote:
For those of a certain age who resent having to pay tax on their
pensions and other income, there currently is a petition to parliament
to double the state pensioners tax-free allowance. Link below to sign,
current stands at 105,314 signatories.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/740671
I'll happily sign if I got the same pensions and tax code.
Otherwise the leaches and parasites who contribute nothing to the UK
economy but get free prescriptions, free travel etc can go f**k themselves.
On 20/02/2026 11:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/02/2026 12:45, No mail wrote:
For those of a certain age who resent having to pay tax on their
pensions and other income, there currently is a petition to
parliament to double the state pensioners tax-free allowance. Link
below to sign, current stands at 105,314 signatories.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/740671
I'll happily sign if I got the same pensions and tax code.
Otherwise the leaches and parasites who contribute nothing to the UK
economy but get free prescriptions, free travel etc can go f**k
themselves.
You don't hope or expect to reach pension age, then?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 20:58:20 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (21,026K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,568 |