Fastest ever Goverment petition

[WBA123]

So is it wrong then I have saved a couple of hundreds of pounds a month for years to provide my daughter with a deposit for her first property? I have scrimped and saved and it?s been really hard going in my case. If others want to blow any spare cash then that?s up to them too.

Working seriously hard? You could say shop workers on the minimum wage work harder than most but they are not paid for their specialist skills - lawyer - banker - surgeon etc.

Never been jealous of anyone and have friends who live in 3 million pound houses and council houses. I judge a person by their genuineness.

Lets turn the question around. James Dyson has an estimated net worth of ?13 billion. He has bought 35,000 acres of farmland all around the UK with a value now thought to be worth around ?500m. Almost certainly to avoid paying any inheritance tax. This is the type of person the Government are targeting.

He claims he is trying to provide a more smarter, renewable type of farming. And he has invested heavily into doing this, investment that may have not been made if the tax was applied.

Is this smart from his perspective because he has invested heavily, in part to avoid this extra taxation? Or should people like Dyson be expected to pay the new inheritance tax on this vast wealth?

The farmers who have land worth ?2-3m are not affected. The ones who are effectively multi-millionaires through their farming property assets are. And I find it hard to believe someone sitting on ?5m+ worth of assets are working day and night for ?30-40k per year. I have read somewhere this will affect around 400-500 estates per year, which is a very small amount and they are still paying less inheritance tax than everyone else who has assets not involved in farming.

Seems to me to be a fair tax policy.

[baggieal]

Well your daughter is very privileged. In my opinion, there should be more barriers to privilege when the majority are struggling.

For example, if you?ve already bought her a house, why should she inherit your house when you die and have two houses while others have none.

Wrong! She will have a deposit for her first house from funds being invested which is not easy to do, What i am putting aside is what many would blow on alcohol and fags each month but of course - that?s their choice.

If one of my daughters friends inherits a million pound house - good for her as she would be very lucky. That parent must likely has run themselves ragged with specialist skills hence the asset.

If someone inherits 5 houses then why should they feel guilty if someone can?t afford one? That?s life.

Bit like saying Jed Wallace should not be allowed to earn 25K plus a week for being past it when someone in Asda does not get ?15 per hour - but they work hard. Again that?s life!

Good luck to anyone who has good fortune especially the one who won the Euromillions 178 million last night. Anyone who bought a ticket would gladly swap places.

[kettering_baggie]

Surely, people such as James Dyson are the exception, having vast wealth. Most people with savings assets or a house to pass on to their children should be able to do so, it’s their money on which tax has already been paid. People or organisations buying up huge tracts of farmland is certainly an issue but it should not be one tied into the inheritance tax debate.

[baggiematt]

Wrong! She will have a deposit for her first house from funds being invested which is not easy to do, What i am putting aside is what many would blow on alcohol and fags each month but of course - that?s their choice.

If one of my daughters friends inherits a million pound house - good for her as she would be very lucky. That parent must likely has run themselves ragged with specialist skills hence the asset.

If someone inherits 5 houses then why should they feel guilty if someone can?t afford one? That?s life.

Bit like saying Jed Wallace should not be allowed to earn 25K plus a week for being past it when someone in Asda does not get ?15 per hour - but they work hard. Again that?s life!

Good luck to anyone who has good fortune especially the one who won the Euromillions 178 million last night. Anyone who bought a ticket would gladly swap places.

I'm not questioning capitalism Al. I get that skills are paid based on scarcity and it's a market for those skills. It's the fairest and simplest way of running a society. But inheritance is based on nothing, with the best off being the most privileged rather than those that have unique skills or knowledge, or indeed hard workers.

Al, you and I both know anyone who can have their deposit paid for their first house is privileged. I don't know what point you're making about fags and alcohol, you write on here about all the holidays you have so you spend your money differently. You've not exactly had to have beans on toast every night to afford to pay your daughters house deposit.

The point isn't that people should feel guilty or doing anything different. The point is that it's an unfair system, privileged for some not for others and the system should change. If you get something, you pay tax on it. There's no such thing as a good taxed once as tax is based on the person not the product.

[baggieal]

I'm not questioning capitalism Al. I get that skills are paid based on scarcity and it's a market for those skills. It's the fairest and simplest way of running a society. But inheritance is based on nothing, with the best off being the most privileged rather than those that have unique skills or knowledge, or indeed hard workers.

Al, you and I both know anyone who can have their deposit paid for their first house is privileged. I don't know what point you're making about fags and alcohol, you write on here about all the holidays you have so you spend your money differently. You've not exactly had to have beans on toast every night to afford to pay your daughters house deposit.

The point isn't that people should feel guilty or doing anything different. The point is that it's an unfair system, privileged for some not for others and the system should change. If you get something, you pay tax on it. There's no such thing as a good taxed once as tax is based on the person not the product.

So you say a child receiving a deposit for a first property is privileged even though a parent is saving hard to do this? So is a parent themselves privileged if they spend equal to a deposit on a flashy car for self obsession? Is a child privileged if a parent pays or contributes around 10K for the daughters wedding? Can?t see the difference personally! Choices and more choices!

Many would argue inheritance tax has already been taxed albeit any capital gains between buying and selling has not. Should any money gifted or lottery win be taxed to a child therefore in your eyes?

I sort of get where you?re coming from if a parent is wealthy and hands their child a penthouse flat. Many parents though may choose to cut back on flashy cars, very nice clothes and other mod cons to help their kids. I do know a few kids who go to a local private school where those parents scrimp and save and forego holidays. In that case are the kids privileged or just lucky they have wonderful parents putting their kids education first before their own needs?

[baggiematt]

So you say a child receiving a deposit for a first property is privileged even though a parent is saving hard to do this? So is a parent themselves privileged if they spend equal to a deposit on a flashy car for self obsession? Is a child privileged if a parent pays or contributes around 10K for the daughters wedding? Can?t see the difference personally! Choices and more choices!

Many would argue inheritance tax has already been taxed albeit any capital gains between buying and selling has not. Should any money gifted or lottery win be taxed to a child therefore in your eyes?

I sort of get where you?re coming from if a parent is wealthy and hands their child a penthouse flat. Many parents though may choose to cut back on flashy cars, very nice clothes and other mod cons to help their kids. I do know a few kids who go to a local private school where those parents scrimp and save and forego holidays. In that case are the kids privileged or just lucky they have wonderful parents putting their kids education first before their own needs?

Absolutely Al, they are privileged. I hope my kids will be too when they're older. They're privileged because they are born into opportunity when most aren't as there parents can't afford to. The privilege is with the child not the parent, so you're right about choices. You could be born to a millionaire who gives you nothing, then you aren't privileged. Reality is, some people will scrimp and work their socks off but still not be able to afford to pay the deposit on their childs first house.

As I said before Al, I don't believe in all wealth being passed on generation to generation, otherwise we'll have the same inequalities we have now. You should receive what you deserve in life and there would be more money to go around everyone else if we taxed inheritance more. The basic standards of living are poor for a lot of people, such as pensioners with a lot in poverty. I don't think it's right that some people inherit huge amounts of assets while some people can barely afford to live. Same goes for Farmers, if. you're going to inherit millions in assets, pay a bit back!

[baggieal]

Absolutely Al, they are privileged. I hope my kids will be too when they're older. They're privileged because they are born into opportunity when most aren't as there parents can't afford to. The privilege is with the child not the parent, so you're right about choices. You could be born to a millionaire who gives you nothing, then you aren't privileged. Reality is, some people will scrimp and work their socks off but still not be able to afford to pay the deposit on their childs first house.

As I said before Al, I don't believe in all wealth being passed on generation to generation, otherwise we'll have the same inequalities we have now. You should receive what you deserve in life and there would be more money to go around everyone else if we taxed inheritance more. The basic standards of living are poor for a lot of people, such as pensioners with a lot in poverty. I don't think it's right that some people inherit huge amounts of assets while some people can barely afford to live. Same goes for Farmers, if. you're going to inherit millions in assets, pay a bit back!

Wow - what a view! If inheritance tax was any higher many would downsize as they are doing already and gift their kids large cash sums under the table. That?s the reality.

You should receive what you deserve in life you say. I agree so if you can?t be a rsed at school to get a decent qualification or be motivated to go to university and study rigorously there should be no complaints if you end up in Greggs on the minimum wage. Likewise if you work your socks off at school and get a great degree at uni - the reality is you will get a rewarding career and decent pay. A great job and pay = a nice property and the financial rewards it brings. Everyone has the same opportunity!

Good luck to those with big bucks as they most likely have deserved it. Wish I was one of them but content with what life has given me.

[Omegstrat6]

Wow - what a view! If inheritance tax was any higher many would downsize as they are doing already and gift their kids large cash sums under the table. That?s the reality.

You should receive what you deserve in life you say. I agree so if you can?t be a rsed at school to get a decent qualification or be motivated to go to university and study rigorously there should be no complaints if you end up in Greggs on the minimum wage. Likewise if you work your socks off at school and get a great degree at uni - the reality is you will get a rewarding career and decent pay. A great job and pay = a nice property and the financial rewards it brings. Everyone has the same opportunity!

Good luck to those with big bucks as they most likely have deserved it. Wish I was one of them but content with what life has given me.

Inequalities in both wealth and opportunities have always been a fact of life. The Norman conquest is the root of much of it in this country as William seized so much land for himself and then parcelled it out amongst his followers, creating not only the feudal system of class but the landed aristocracy. Down generations, so many of these families have inherited not only land but wealth, power and opportunities. They had position purely via inheritance, becoming justices of the peace, magistrates and later MPs. Many later improved their lots further, investing in the slavery driven colonies, new industries and the opportunities of Empire. They prosper still.

Power corrupts and money goes to money. The World Wars saw the decline of some of these older powerful families but these were then replaced with the nouveaux rich, the "captains" of industry and commerce who made fortunes through not only business acumen and hard work but by the exploitation of their workforce.

People might scoff and say that so much of this happened years ago, even centuries, and that it has no relevance today. They are wrong. The really top jobs overwhelmingly still go to those from the same privileged backgrounds and if you are a person of colour, female or have the wrong accent you are far less likely to get a seat at the top table.

But I know you aren't talking about this level of inherited wealth Al, you are talking about all those who have worked hard to make something of themselves and create a certain level of comfort. Why shouldn't they then chose to pass on some of their benefits to their children, after all, isn't that a big part of wanting to succeed, not just for personal gratification, but to help family? I agree with you on this.

Communism does not work as history tells us. It neither creates an equal society nor economic wealth as lack of personal incentives only lead to lower productivity . Capitalism if coupled with democracy, despite it's many faults, can create far better economic prosperity and also opportunities for more individuals to make good. The moot point is getting the balance right between personal self-interest and social conscience. If -as Maggie famously declared-you don't believe in a concept of "society" then you may create opportunities for some to thrive but such a selfish society will then leave many others exploited and kept poor. Personally, I don't want to live in a society like that and I'm pretty certain you don't either.

The issue is how you fund social policies, whether it is benefits, housing, health care or education. A big part of this has to be through taxation. If you are well off and have worked hard to be so, great-but I believe that the very wealthy should be taxed more because they can better afford it and that they should not get certain blanket benefits that are designed to support the more vulnerable if they do not need it themselves. Yes, it can be argued that much of what they have achieved is purely down to their own hard work and ability but the society they live in has also enabled this so surely they might be expected to give something back and to have something of a social conscience?

Right-wing Tories continually peddle the line that if you only work hard you will reap the financial rewards. This is blatantly not true as I know plenty that work hard who struggle financially. In my experience, those who succeed do indeed work hard but they also have drive and ambition and frequently have been in the right place at the right time in terms of being able to seize opportunities. I really do not believe it is true that everyone can "make their own luck".

I agree with you that those who have worked hard for their rewards should be able to financially help their children but I'm afraid I do have to disagree with some of your last claims. Having qualifications does not necessarily guarantee you a good job, particularly these days when we have more young people than ever before with degrees, and neither does hard work. There are young people with qualifications on minimum wage or just above working in Greggs or supermarkets because they cannot get that decently paid job they had hoped their degree would get them. At least they have got off their arses and are working and, hopefully, better opportunities will come for them.

I don't doubt that the majority in good jobs with good prospects have indeed been to uni and worked hard but this is not a given and it never was as it all depends so much on the job situation at the time. For example, I worked hard for my degree and I also worked every holiday/break whilst I was at uni but the job market when I graduated was a lot worse than when I started my degree and those anticipated great vacancies were in short supply.

Also have to disagree with you when you say everybody has the same opportunities in life because, whilst you can argue that everybody could have a certain level of drive or work ethic, you still need a level playing field in other areas. Sadly, the data still shows particular areas of the country that continually have lower educational standards, fewer job opportunities, lower incomes and poorer health. Regional inequality remains a problem.

Apologies (again&#128513 for lengthy post

[Leicesterbaggie]

Omegstrat6, no need to apologise for a very erudite thread. Much of what you say is correct but I would like to add a few points for consideration.

My first point is that Blaire wanting 50% of the population to attend university was ridiculous. In essence it devalued degrees and led to some of what I describe as ?Mickey Mouse? subjects being on offer. When I attended school, a long time ago I accept, only 20% of the population passed the 11+, and only a small percentage of those went on to attend university, thus making a degree something special. Today, every ?Tom, Dick and Harry? has a degree. Added to this, the less academic were offered apprentiships, an excellent method for career prospects but they have been virtually done away with. A great shame in my opinion.

My second point is that our benefit system requires a complete overhaul. Too many individuals who are workshy play the system and get benefits they do not deserve, thus meaning that those who are genuinely entitled don?t get what they require to live comfortably. It may be idealistic on my part but we need systems to root out these scroungers and get benefits to those who genuinely deserve them.

These aren?t all the answers but I feel that they are valid points.

P.S. Why are question marks inserted instead of inverted commas?

[Omegstrat6]

Omegstrat6, no need to apologise for a very erudite thread. Much of what you say is correct but I would like to add a few points for consideration.

My first point is that Blaire wanting 50% of the population to attend university was ridiculous. In essence it devalued degrees and led to some of what I describe as ?Mickey Mouse? subjects being on offer. When I attended school, a long time ago I accept, only 20% of the population passed the 11+, and only a small percentage of those went on to attend university, thus making a degree something special. Today, every ?Tom, Dick and Harry? has a degree. Added to this, the less academic were offered apprentiships, an excellent method for career prospects but they have been virtually done away with. A great shame in my opinion.

My second point is that our benefit system requires a complete overhaul. Too many individuals who are workshy play the system and get benefits they do not deserve, thus meaning that those who are genuinely entitled don?t get what they require to live comfortably. It may be idealistic on my part but we need systems to root out these scroungers and get benefits to those who genuinely deserve them.

These aren?t all the answers but I feel that they are valid points.

P.S. Why are question marks inserted instead of inverted commas?

100% with you on the benefits system Leics! Reeve's proposals on this are probably the one thing she has talked about that most people might agree with her on. Long overdue IMHO.

To my mind, both taxation and benefits need to be far better targeted so that public monies can be saved while those genuinely deserving get the support they need. PIP payments are a case in point. Currently, it's not just the shortage in the numbers of assessors that is causing issues but the quality of many of those assessments. I'm sure that many of us can point to those we know of personally who are in receipt of benefits they really should not be getting whilst we know of others who genuinely need them but are struggling to get them.

Also largely agree with your thoughts around Blair's aim to get more young people into higher education whilst the number of decent apprenticeship schemes severely declined. I'm all for creating equal opportunities and "being the best you can" but not everyone is academic and no point pushing young people into qualifications for the sake of it. They need to learn the skills that will enable them to get jobs and in sectors that the country actually needs.