Inheritance Tax and now a Death Tax

[Clip]

Inheritance Tax and now a Death Tax, I would have thought your Inheritance tax was supposed to go towards the elderly? Why don't they just render the bodies and sell it as fertilizer?

Sounds very similiar to our gas tax that was supposed to go towards better highways, and now they keep on trying to add another tax to? You're right, Go towards better highways....

[Philip]

Inheritance Tax and now a Death Tax, I would have thought your Inheritance tax was supposed to go towards the elderly? Why don't they just render the bodies and sell it as fertilizer?

Sounds very similiar to our gas tax that was supposed to go towards better highways, and now they keep on trying to add another tax to? You're right, Go towards better highways....
peter l reckon all old people should be killed at birth!!!!! HE!HE! phil:don't be nasty:

[Mike]

Ha ha ha. :22: I wonder about the definition of 'old'. Now that I'm 62 going on 63, I reckon old is about 80. But my kids would beg to differ. :D

I suppose there is something to this discussion on a Death Tax, though the name should perhaps be put differently - 'Bucket Tax' perhaps? As in kicking the bucket.

It seems to be upsetting the likely inheritors far more than the potential payer of the tax, dead or alive. He heh.

All taxes are an impost as far as I am concerned. And stealth taxes concern me far more than any so-called Death Tax. I am absolutely in favour of Inheritance Tax, provided the threshold is fair. Anything that would deprive the so-called 'upper class' chinless wonders in our society is fine by me. You only have to listen to the way some of them speak of the average working class man to hate their guts.

I shall say no more on this subject as it is a vexation to my spirit. :Christo_pull_hair:

[Clip]

I spent an 'alf hour typing out a bunch of questions/comments concerning this, but I chickened out. I was just curious, as to the spending going on and then the new taxes. (been reading your papers)

[Mike]

Well, Peter, I suppose we have to pay greater impost simply to fund that unholy 'war' going on overseas - even though it was not fought in our name ... or your name ... or any decent human being's name.

Although I accept this sounds utterly selfish and parochial, it seems to me futile to interfere in the affairs of any other country unless it seeks to invade yours and kill you and yours. It is not so very long ago that our so-called western democracies were in much the same state as was Iraq or Afghanistan before we sent our young men there with weapons of mass destruction (which includes, in my view, simple automatic rifles - I guess it depends upon how many lives are taken to be 'a mass').

I'm a great believer in allowing others to advance into the 21st Century as they see fit. I mean, if Iraqis didn't want Saddam Hussein, why didn't they get off their asses and do something about that themselves? I dare say less of them would have been killed than were annihilated by us had they risen up against him themselves. As to Afghanistan, you would think the British would know better than any other nation just how ridiculus it is to try to force the Afghans to live as we do.

We should mind our own business and get our own house in order before we even contemplate trying to tell others how they should live.

I am sick of seeing C17s disgorging the flag-draped coffins of our young men who have died for no good purpose that I can see. Madness! And now we must pay for all this by the imposition upon us of absurd new taxes like 'Death Tax'. It's almost risible.

When you look at it the way I do, I suppose the name of this tax is actually quite appropriate.

Now, please stop winding me up, mate. Like I said, this sort of thing is a vexation to the spirit.

Regards

[Clip]

Well it occured to me that once a person retires, the goverment may decide that instead of having the health care system spend thousands to keep him alive, they would be further ahead if he were dead.

Just a thought, I wonder if a day will come when they decide on healthcare support based on the return to treasury. The USA does it already with their private health insurance system, there you even loose your job if the insurance company doesn't want you.

[Mike]

Well it occured to me that once a person retires, the goverment may decide that instead of having the health care system spend thousands to keep him alive, they would be further ahead if he were dead.There is an alternative approach being adopted here, Peter, and that is to increase the age of retirement and keep people taxed to the gills for much longer. I can see retirement age being pushed to well beyond 70 by the a-holes who govern this country.


Just a thought, I wonder if a day will come when they decide on healthcare support based on the return to treasury. The USA does it already with their private health insurance system, there you even loose your job if the insurance company doesn't want you.To be blunt, I don't much like the way the Yanks do anything. This includes, in particular, their so-called healthcare system which boils down to 'you pays your money or we let you die'. The list of things I don't much like about the USA is rather long but encompasses things like the right to bear arms, the use and variance of the death penalty, the overt displays of religious fanaticism (yes, even white Americans can be religious fanatics), and so on and so forth.

I sincerely hope the Brits do not go down the paths blazed by what is supposedly the home of democracy and freedom. There is no worth in what American governments do - unless you like drinking (and/or sniffing) Coke and eating Big Macs, which I don't.

It is, however, important to bear in mind that many Americans are good people who despise precisely the same things and work towards change. And they can only do that for so long as they live in a country which allows that right. That much at least we have in common, of course. And I believe fervently that such change will eventually come and it will prevail.

[George Waite]

Mike
We have the right, nay we are required to keep and bear arms (even if it is a bow and arrow). The gun crime rate in any coutry has little or no relation to the number of gun owners. The social attitudes to weapons does. The Swiss are required to keep a military weapon in their homes and they have the lowest rate of gun crime in the world. Another observation; every massacre of the 20th century was preceeded by a general disarming of the relevant population ("for the safety of all").

[Mike]

Mike
We have the right, nay we are required to keep and bear arms (even if it is a bow and arrow).I was aware of the enactment that made it compulsory for all Brits to be skilled in the use of the longbow. However, I would not wish to test the Police under that law as to my right to own and carry, that is to bear, a pistol, rifle, or automatic weapon. I fear I might end up in the Tower.

The gun crime rate in any coutry has little or no relation to the number of gun owners. The social attitudes to weapons does.Agreed but with some reservations as to the words 'little or no relation'. If there is some relation then that is reason enough in my view to strictly supervise those permitted to own a gun.

The Swiss are required to keep a military weapon in their homes and they have the lowest rate of gun crime in the world.Not much harm flows from bearing a Swiss Army penknife - or in going into battle on a bicycle.

Another observation; every massacre of the 20th century was preceeded by a general disarming of the relevant population ("for the safety of all").Not too sure about that one, George.

I get the thrust of what you are saying but would beg to differ on some points. Unusual for you and me but, knowing you, there is good enough reason behind your position. I look forward to hearing about the whys and wherefores of this. :rain:

Best wishes

[George Waite]

Mike
It boils down to the fact that I do not trust the "Guardians of our liberty" and see any form of so-called gun legislation as the thin end of a sinister wedge, they have taken handguns away from those who shot targets and left them in the hands of those who shoot people. I could fill a page with examples of political idiocy concerning the control of firearms. The type of person chosen by the authorities to legally carry weapons (other than soldiers) worries me, I have owned guns all my life for clay pigeon/pest control but would not even think of wanting to volentarily put myself in a position to potentially kill someone! 15 years ago one of my neighbours was killed on the front lawn of his farmhouse by a group of gun toting adolescents in police uniforms despite the protestations of his next door neighbour and lifelong friend who was and is a Phsyciatric Nursing sister. He had in his hand a Webly blank firing starting pistol. And no I cannot (in this case) except the excuse that the police did not know what it was, as any bloody fool could see it for what it was let alone so called "trained" fireams officers. If you want to see how grown-ups deal with a similar situation there is a You-Tube video showing an armed man having the gun shot out of his hand by a police marksman. There are many options other than hitting some poor mentally ill soul in the chest from 15ft with heavy rifle fire

[Mike]

George

As I thought, there was good reason behind your view. Reason enough, in fact, to cause me to say that I would not disagree with a single word you wrote above.

I too have a recently acquired mistrust of the Police, in particular the Avon & Somerset Constabulary, whose conduct ever since I gave evidence in a court that exonerated a completely innocent man has been nothing short of unbridled harassment.

Perhaps this is down to the fact that I told the that court that, in my view, the Police had not gone about their work in an appropriate manner when the prosecuting barrister challenged me. Perhaps it was because I have this natural tendency to stand up and fight against perceived injustice. Whatever the reason, I now mistrust the Police with a vengeance. It does not sit well with me to feel this way but I simply cannot forgive some of the antics to which they have since stooped.

Seeing things like the Menendez case doesn't help to quell my anger either. That Police officers could pump seven bullets at point blank range into the head of an innocent man and then get away with it gnaws away at the very soul of me. I go one step further and say that I never thought I would see the day when the British public stood idly by and just let this crime go unpunished. There was hardly a whimper from the vast majority here. Maybe it's because Menendez was not a Brit, I don't know, but whatever the reason, this country has gone way down in my estimation and has become a place in which I feel totally unsafe - not from those without but from those within it.

Why do you think I want to build a liveaboard boat and push off elsewhere?

Anyway, rant over. I follow your reasoning. Nevertheless, I would much prefer to feel unsafe here than in the US of A. There is something awfully gung-ho about the way the American government behaves. And that makes my flesh creep. So much power in the hands of religious fanatics is an extremely dangerous thing.

Regards

[Clip]

Mike, I feel that a fair number of Americans probably would agree to a lot that you had said. Their health care system quite often requires a middle class family to declare bankruptcy when a long term illness is in the family, that way government aid will step in. In Canada our health care is much like yours, but it is always under pressure from the US to switch over. It is quite laughable to hear US politicians pointing to Canada as to the reason not to have a public health care system. It all has to do with money, and in whose pocket it goes.

In the case of guns I would agree with George, the Wife keeps on reminding me when we are down there, not to interfere in street problems, since half the people carry the things. Education in good firearm use, and required testing and licensing for owning them does help a lot. But here in Canada, the US presence guarantees their usage by criminals, banning them won't work. Its been tried. It is a mind set thing and integral with the US society.

In general I really admire the hard work ethic and ingenuity of a lot thsoe folk down there. They can really make something out of nothing. That could be a pun there.

[Mike]

Oh dear, Peter. I really enjoyed that last post of yours. Very sensible and logical - and I think I would agree with most of it.

However, you touched on two points that are, I feel, highly relevant with regard to my mistrust of the US system: the Protestant work ethic (hard work, if you like) and money (and in whose pocket it goes).

Can you think of one good reason as to why human beings should work hard rather than smart? Why must there be a five or six day working week? Why not just three or four days and the rest of the time spent enjoying life itself in whatever way one chooses?

And how do we justify the obsession we seem to have here in the West when it comes to material wealth. Perhaps the worst thing to have been done in government here in recent times was the Maggie Thatcher decision to give council house tenants the 'right to buy'. I could almost write a book on how that one legislative change has transformed British Society and created an entire new class of individuals with the so-called 'work ethic' and obsession with material wealth.

I agree with you that there are undoubtedly many Americans who feel much the same as I do. Nonetheless, I would not wish to live in America. I think your wife has it right on the button. Moving about in a society of gun toting nutcases who would not hesitate to use one seems to me close to the worst possible nightmare. I agree with you and George in that there is a mindset involved. But how do you get rid of that mindset? Banning will make little difference but control is perhaps the only way likely to succeed. Careful enforcement of strict rules on gun ownership are the very least that should be done.

Peter, I like the sound of Canada and I like what I have been seeing of it on televising of the Winter Olympics. If it wasn't so cold there - and so close to the USA - I would be headed your way real soon. However, I have plenty of experience with the French and France - and that is a society in which I would feel most comfortable. Far from perfect, of course, but pretty darned close to what is perfection in my eyes.

Vive la France! :cheer2:

Regards

[George Waite]

Peter/Mike
I do not know if you would agree with this but a Canadian friend once told me that the difference between Canada and the US was that in the US the people arrived first and the law followed, whereas in Canada the law arrived first and the people later. I spent many years working amongst people who carried guns around from the age of 15 onward (Yemen etc) and was even instructed to do so myself as a deterrent to kidnapping. But the sight of a Yemeni or Omani beduin with a rifle does not worry me because he does not have a casual attitude to firearms and will only point the thing at you if he intends to use it! The sight of an American with a gun frightens me. We are back to social attitudes

[Mike]

George

Having flown in or into very many places where guns are commonplace, I would agree with that.

Of course, Australian Police officers carry firearms. I cannot recall hearing of a single occasion in Western Australia upon which one was used, though I imagine they are occasionally drawn in some circumstances.

That said, I sometimes found myself in tight spaces with armed Police - such as in a lift in commercial premises - and the feeling I had looking at the weapon on their belt was more than a little uncomfortable. I would put that feeling down to the simple fact that I felt at a distinct disadvantage. I was not similarly armed so as to defend myself from an attack.

Given my recent change of position with regard to trusting British Police officers, I would be absolutely terrified were the ordinary English Bobby toting a pistol on the hip. And I would seek to arm myself similarly - whether by fair means or foul. :innocent: