• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

sarahbell

The 80k man

Recommended Posts

On 23/11/2019 at 11:37, ILikeCake said:

There's also the mental health thing.  My basic hours are 07:30 to 17:30, 5 days a week with usually around an hours commute each way on top depending on which site I'm working on.  There's also the occasional weekend.  I'm allowed 30min's each day for lunch and that's it.  My job is very stressful.  There are loads of people off on the sick with stress, some are contractors who don't get paid if they're off so you know it's genuine.  When people come back they generally just get pushed into shit roles. Over the last few years there has been a massive push on mental health & well being mostly driven by the HSE but it's just box ticking bullshit.  They mainly recommend that you take time to relax, eat healthy and exercise etc but you just don't have the time to do it.  We have posters up everywhere and they just boil my piss.  Oh and there's a helpline.  One of my college's found another one who had topped himself one morning.  A little while later he ran the helpline and they were a waste of time, he ended up getting help through his Dr.

I had all this bollocks with National Grid where i worked as a contractor, i really wanted to call out the tosser who was trotting out the mental illness/ stress line and that they're there to help nonsense. ... if contractors had conflict with NG staff they were down the road.

Fucken wankers one and all. And NG's staff seem thick as fucken mince on an unbelievably cushty gravy train. No doubt there a few percent of intelligent people running the show but i didnt meet any.

 

Edited by Tdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tdog said:

Its all rigged though, council is bribed by big developer into what greenbelt can be built on, then in their 5/10 year policy as if by magic the greenbelt they want to build on gets planning consent.

Farmland near me is getting maybe 1 thousand houses built on, if i wanted to do something similar for 1 house 5 years ago i'd be told to fuck off.

As you say another reason not to vote Tory.

Tory sponsors.

Your best bet for self-building, IMO, is to declare yourself an Irish Traveller. The ruse only really works if you've got kids young enough to be in school though  - I don't know how in-depth their checks are, most pikeys are not on the Electoral Roll, so perhaps you could lie about how old your kids are, anyway.

It works like this:

1. Buy a nice big plot of land from some land owner for, say £100k. Maybe an acre or so.

2. Declare yourself an Irish Traveller and register with the Gypsy Council, it's free.

3. Put down a tarmac drive, build walls and fences and move in a static home. Just a cheap one, as you won't be keeping it.

4. When the council coming knocking and trying to force you off the land for planning breaches, as you're now a registered minority, you'll get free legal aid via the Gypsy Council (if chased far back enough, I believe this funding comes from the EU). Whereas the local Borough Council will need to spend significant amounts on legal fees if they pursue you.

5. If they do pursue you, which is unlikely, then the Gypsy Council will tell the Borough Council that your kids are in school and to disturb them would be a breach of your and their human rights. Hey presto, you can now stay forever. That land is yours to keep, you can now apply to build a house, although this one gets a bit tougher because most genuine pikeys don't want to live in houses, but again, the Gypsy Council will give you free legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, spunko said:

For everyone. I am sick to death of reading articles like that. "Won't someone think of the young people?!" by some tosspot that lives in Islington and never sets foot in the Greenbelt encroachment for fear of getting muddy. The Greenbelt is London's lung. The air that we breathe and our wellbeing depends on the preservation of it. It is vital regarding climate change, landscape, biodiversity, access, health and wellbeing (pollution), food and farming. Paving it over will help nobody.

I have a question for those on here that advocate the frankly rather barmy "let's build everywhere" mantra: where does it end? At which point is enough?

 

PS: By the way, that map I posted above is 4 years out of date. Here's an updated version from 2018:

Screenshot_2019-11-24 bca22d_f51145a95b1b4314918880b83be3ceb0 pdf.png

You are buying into the globalist lie if you think building on protected greenfield, at the cost and detriment to everything and everyone else, is going to get you what you want. There is already enough land owned by the top 4 housebuilders to build MILLIONS of homes.  There is enough non-Greenbelt, brownfield land in Kent, Hertfordshire and Essex (IIRC) to build 250k homes.

 


You're missing the point, with your another reason not to vote Tories.  It's the traditional Tory voter that's trying to prevent it. 

The general refusal to blame Labour or Labour councils in all of this is astounding. 

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, feed said:


You're missing the point, with your another reason not to vote Tories.  It's the traditional Tory voter that's trying to prevent it. 

The general refusal to blame Labour or Labour councils in all of this is astounding. 

 

 
 

Then the Tory voter is delusional and should be sectioned. Who votes for a party that lets in 400k people (net) every year, who votes for a party where the leader has announced plans to build "A MILLION" houses, yet then "tries to prevent" house building for those very people? That will mean in the South East, and that will mean on Greenbelt (and everywhere fucking else).

The only party that has a planning policy worth any salt is UKIP (and possibly now BXP) where they will force housebuilders to build on brownfield sites. It was in their manifesto, so they should stand by it.

It doesn't go far enough by any stretch, but it's a start. All the other parties buy into the "WE NEED HOUSES FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE!" bollocks.

Edited by spunko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spunko said:

Then the Tory voter is delusional and should be sectioned. Who votes for a party that lets in 400k people (net) every year, who votes for a party where the leader has announced plans to build "A MILLION" houses. That will mean in the South East, and that will mean on Greenbelt (and everywhere fucking else).

The only party that has a planning policy worth any salt is UKIP (and possibly now BXP) where they will force housebuilders to build on brownfield sites. It was in their manifesto, so they should stand by it.

 

It doesn't go far enough by any stretch, but it's a start. All the other parties buy into the "WE NEED HOUSES FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE!" bollocks.

UKIP are done.  BXP are funded by the same people as the conservatives and unlikely to win any seats.  Anyone that thinks this would be any better under Labour is delusional. 

And sure, The Conservatives are the Conservatives are the Conservatives.  They are and always have been the party of the land owner, the landlord and the rent seeker.  They are doing the same job they’ve been doing for decades.  They haven’t changed.  If they don’t have your interests in mind, i get it.  

But we’re not here because the Conservatives are still the Conservatives.  We’re here because of Blairs neo liberalism, Browns economic devastation, the Labour Party complete and utter betrayal of the working poor.  We’re here because there is no opposition to the land owners, landlord and the rent seekers.  There was no opposition to May.  The Labour party could not oppose the worse the Conservatives had to offer.  After that, what do you think they’re going to do.  

This Labour party needs to be burnt to ground, so maybe, just maybe a party that represents the Tax paying workers can be formed.  If people continue to support this abomination of a Labour Party, that will never happen.  

So continue to blame the Conservatives for all of the countries ills and fail to hold the Labour Party to account and we will never have a party to oppose the rent seekers and without a counter to the Conservatives, they will never need to change.   

But time and time again, it’s the evil Tories meme without any attempt to hold Labour to account.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, spunko said:

Your best bet for self-building, IMO, is to declare yourself an Irish Traveller. The ruse only really works if you've got kids young enough to be in school though  - I don't know how in-depth their checks are, most pikeys are not on the Electoral Roll, so perhaps you could lie about how old your kids are, anyway.

It works like this:

1. Buy a nice big plot of land from some land owner for, say £100k. Maybe an acre or so.

2. Declare yourself an Irish Traveller and register with the Gypsy Council, it's free.

3. Put down a tarmac drive, build walls and fences and move in a static home. Just a cheap one, as you won't be keeping it.

4. When the council coming knocking and trying to force you off the land for planning breaches, as you're now a registered minority, you'll get free legal aid via the Gypsy Council (if chased far back enough, I believe this funding comes from the EU). Whereas the local Borough Council will need to spend significant amounts on legal fees if they pursue you.

5. If they do pursue you, which is unlikely, then the Gypsy Council will tell the Borough Council that your kids are in school and to disturb them would be a breach of your and their human rights. Hey presto, you can now stay forever. That land is yours to keep, you can now apply to build a house, although this one gets a bit tougher because most genuine pikeys don't want to live in houses, but again, the Gypsy Council will give you free legal advice.

Many own houses In Ireland 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, feed said:

UKIP are done.  BXP are funded by the same people as the conservatives and unlikely to win any seats.  Anyone that thinks this would be any better under Labour is delusional. 

And sure, The Conservatives are the Conservatives are the Conservatives.  They are and always have been the party of the land owner, the landlord and the rent seeker.  They are doing the same job they’ve been doing for decades.  They haven’t changed.  If they don’t have your interests in mind, i get it.  

But we’re not here because the Conservatives are still the Conservatives.  We’re here because of Blairs neo liberalism, Browns economic devastation, the Labour Party complete and utter betrayal of the working poor.  We’re here because there is no opposition to the land owners, landlord and the rent seekers.  There was no opposition to May.  The Labour party could not oppose the worse the Conservatives had to offer.  After that, what do you think they’re going to do.  

This Labour party needs to be burnt to ground, so maybe, just maybe a party that represents the Tax paying workers can be formed.  If people continue to support this abomination of a Labour Party, that will never happen.  

So continue to blame the Conservatives for all of the countries ills and fail to hold the Labour Party to account and we will never have a party to oppose the rent seekers and without a counter to the Conservatives, they will never need to change.   

But time and time again, it’s the evil Tories meme without any attempt to hold Labour to account.  
 

Nonsense. 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you, but the reason we "need" to build a million+ houses on inappropriate land, can be explained by this graph:

_94812032_long_term_migration_final_624_jan20.png

Blame Corbyn or Labour all you want. Meanwhile Boris and the globalists continue to hope you don't notice the man behind the curtain, after almost 10 years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, spunko said:

Nonsense. 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you, but the reason we "need" to build a million+ houses on inappropriate land, can be explained by this graph:

_94812032_long_term_migration_final_624_jan20.png

Blame Corbyn or Labour all you want. Meanwhile Boris and the globalists continue to hope you don't notice the man behind the curtain, after almost 10 years.

 

 

 

And Labour have done a such great job in opposing that. In opposing the weakest Conservative Government. Their policies are damn near the same. Where do you think those Labour controlled London councils will build their share of 150k council houses, who do think they will populate them with? 

But sure keep on giving Labour a pass. Keep on failing to hold them to account for Blair/Brown, keep on failing to hold them to account for being a truly terrible opposition party.  Let them get 30% of the popular vote in the next election and let absolutely nothing change.  

Incidentally, i don't believe that any government will change immigration.  Mass immigration will stop when it stops being beneficial to monetary policy. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@feed The point is that the Tories have had almost 10 years to reverse it, as per their promises, but instead it's risen and risen. To point at Labour and say "they would not have done any different", or to condone Labour migration policy - that ended in 2010! -, is obviously ridiculous.

I have not and never will condone Labour. I despise Blair, Brown with a passion, and Corbyn is clearly a fruit cake. But you are parroting the same idea that the slavish mainstream media do, that a vote for Labour means you automatically oppose the Tories, or a vote for the Tories means you oppose Labour. It's nonsense. I dislike them all, and don't view them as polar opposites, they are one and the same and - exluding my voting for Corbyn in the hope he fucks this country over so we have to 'reset' - I would never vote for either of them for genuine reasons. Quite honestly if I saw Boris on fire I wouldn't piss on him, or indeed any globalist.

BXP are an unknown entity at this point, but I'm prepared to put my faith in them (sadly not at the ballot box in my constituency as they're not standing). As a load of ex UKIPers have left to join BXP I'm relying on them to have similar manifesto pledges to UKIP. They might not, but at least it's something other than LibLabCon. Oh to have a proper right-wing party in the UK....!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons were Enoched.

2010- 2015 was coalition and mopping up immediate outfall of Browns nassive crddit bubble then bust.

2015 onwards was dealing with self inflicted falloyt of brexit vote.

See my brexit post on ToS.

Ukgov should have restructed tax credits in 2010.

They should have clarified migrants access to benefits i.e none.

They should have brought in a migrants registration system, £200/head, paid by migrant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, spunko said:

I was trying to make a number of points I suppose. Firstly, your use of the word "keen" is unrealistic, they will not be keen to have a sale forced upon them..! I don't agree morally with state intervention where it'd force people to sell their house simply because they have now become redundant in the eyes of the young. At risk of over-simplfying, it - generally - isn't the boomer's fault that young people cannot afford houses.

Morally, it's surely obvious that the state cannot encourage homebuying on the one hand (at the cost of pretty much everything else, literally...); and then on the other hand snatch back what people have rightfully paid for through years of work, just because we have a "housing shortage". There is an unspoken agreement in this country that has existed for centuries: you work, you buy a house, you retire and live in that house until you die. To break this social contract, notwithstanding the fact that something like this would be ridiculously unpopular anyway, would cause such huge ripples in society it wouldn't be worth it. What guarantees will the young get, that they won't suffer the same fate? Why bother working and paying off a mortgage if the next generation is going to demand that you need to sell up when your home hits some arbitrary value threshold?

PS: The point I was trying to make about £300k is that it buys a 2 bedroom flat here. If this is politics of envy, which it sounds like, then the threshold would need to be about £500k above that, if you really want to target the greedy boomers.

So my point isn't directed at Boomers. 

I don'[t agree with your arguments at all. Morally, the state can't encourage work (through years of education investment) and then snatch back half of what you earn when you get a job? I think the argument is then that tax is amoral? 

A country needs tax to pay for it's protection, infrastructure, services etc. How much tax is a function of the government and the electorate but my point stands, it is crazy to tax someone nothing for getting £1m while it is fine to tax them 40% + for working for it. 

At the moment, the very opposite of what WF describes takes place. Keep your massive under occupied home and you benefit from an even bigger tax break on death (fat use that is for you). Fail to see the issue at all with taxing unearned wealth gain at the marginal rate of income. 

Around here (Wokingham) £300k gets you about the same and the average Boomer probably lives in an £750k to £1m house. Not typical of the country agreed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, stokiescum said:

Either way if it’s taxed at local land values I can live with that London will be devoid of people within 3 years 

It would be, but why would London be devoid of people? 

It is land value, not apartment value, so that building plot for £25m with 250 apartments on it is only £100k LVT per apartment. Someone like me would suffer more, detached house on a good plot probably worth around £300k as a building site. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spunko said:

@feed The point is that the Tories have had almost 10 years to reverse it, as per their promises, but instead it's risen and risen. 

Why would they, they've had no reason too, they can do what they want, because they have no one to oppose them.  

Unfortunately, we will only ever have a Conservative government or a Labour government, there are no 3rd party options.   There maybe a minority government with a coalition partner. But it will be Conservative or Labour in power.  Not voting for one is supporting the other and not voting at all, is a vote for the incumbent.  Believe me I would love to see alternatives options, but saying that you dislike them both changes nothing.  It maintains the status quo and until we have a party that can oppose the Conservatives, they will not change.  And this Labour party isn't capable of opposing them.    

But still this zombie Labour party will shamble on after this election.   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, feed said:

Why would they, they've had no reason too, they can do what they want, because they have no one to oppose them.  

Unfortunately, we will only ever have a Conservative government or a Labour government, there are no 3rd party options.   There maybe a minority government with a coalition partner. But it will be Conservative or Labour in power.  Not voting for one is supporting the other and not voting at all, is a vote for the incumbent.  Believe me I would love to see alternatives options, but saying that you dislike them both changes nothing.  It maintains the status quo and until we have a party that can oppose the Conservatives, they will not change.  And this Labour party isn't capable of opposing them.    

But still this zombie Labour party will shamble on after this election.   
 

Thats quite an ott claim.

The main Uk parties have been losing voter share for 30 years.

Uk is at a point where a new party has a good chance of being elected. Esp. With email n facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Thats quite an ott claim.

The main Uk parties have been losing voter share for 30 years.

Uk is at a point where a new party has a good chance of being elected. Esp. With email n facebook.

Sadly you're wrong

image.png.6dd3935c9f7122ae5b1a1dc169fd7f0d.png

 

   
23 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Thats quite an ott claim.

The main Uk parties have been losing voter share for 30 years.

Uk is at a point where a new party has a good chance of being elected. Esp. With email n facebook.

seats are no better

image.thumb.png.98093d73cd302f862d7507a69c9007b7.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adarmo said:

So my point isn't directed at Boomers. 

I don'[t agree with your arguments at all. Morally, the state can't encourage work (through years of education investment) and then snatch back half of what you earn when you get a job? I think the argument is then that tax is amoral? 

A country needs tax to pay for it's protection, infrastructure, services etc. How much tax is a function of the government and the electorate but my point stands, it is crazy to tax someone nothing for getting £1m while it is fine to tax them 40% + for working for it.

You are talking in extremities that rarely apply though. A few pages back you were advocating the threshold to be at £300k (I think...?) and now you are using an example of £1m, even though only a tiny, tiny minority of boomers have £1m+ equity. At which price does one decide that such wealth is unfair and unearned? This honestly sounds like some sort of abstract socialist moralising, that one man's wealth is another man's destitution.

Anyway, I don't understand your desire for State intevention. If the state hadn't encouraged forever HPI, which has effectively put each and every citizen of this country into tens of thousands of pounds of debt, then perhaps you'd have a point. But as I said above the State cannot then go on to moralise over how Mrs Entitled Boomer has acquired a house with 6 bedrooms that has quadrupled in value in 15 years, as a direct result of their own policies and try to force her out into a smaller house because hang on a fucking minute there are young people who need your house more than you (who we've spent the last 20 years buttfucking, but ignore that, it's YOUR fault you greedy boomer). 

 

Edited by spunko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, feed said:

 Believe me I would love to see alternatives options, but saying that you dislike them both changes nothing.  It maintains the status quo and until we have a party that can oppose the Conservatives, they will not change.  And this Labour party isn't capable of opposing them.    

 

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that because there is an absence of alternatives, then we all must unite behind one of the two options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spunko said:

Your best bet for self-building, IMO, is to declare yourself an Irish Traveller. The ruse only really works if you've got kids young enough to be in school though  - I don't know how in-depth their checks are, most pikeys are not on the Electoral Roll, so perhaps you could lie about how old your kids are, anyway.

It works like this:

1. Buy a nice big plot of land from some land owner for, say £100k. Maybe an acre or so.

2. Declare yourself an Irish Traveller and register with the Gypsy Council, it's free.

3. Put down a tarmac drive, build walls and fences and move in a static home. Just a cheap one, as you won't be keeping it.

4. When the council coming knocking and trying to force you off the land for planning breaches, as you're now a registered minority, you'll get free legal aid via the Gypsy Council (if chased far back enough, I believe this funding comes from the EU). Whereas the local Borough Council will need to spend significant amounts on legal fees if they pursue you.

5. If they do pursue you, which is unlikely, then the Gypsy Council will tell the Borough Council that your kids are in school and to disturb them would be a breach of your and their human rights. Hey presto, you can now stay forever. That land is yours to keep, you can now apply to build a house, although this one gets a bit tougher because most genuine pikeys don't want to live in houses, but again, the Gypsy Council will give you free legal advice.

Is funny because its true! 

Apart from no.5 there pretty much aren't any genuine Pikeys now, and most have a house or permanent pitch to live in/on.

Edited by Tdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tdog said:

Is funny because its true!

Even big powerful housebuilders cannot force pikeys off their land. There was a recent situation near where my office is of a single "static caravan" moving in, installing huge ugly gates with horse heads on them, and a driveway. After a year or so of legal tangles, Bovis Homes relented and just let them stay. Literally could not evict a family of 4 pikeys from land THEY owned despite having £millions of available legal fees and the best laywers.

Now they have built their slaveboxes around the pikey caravan and just put trees up, no exageration. You have to laugh, otherwise you'd go crazy. PERSECUTED MINORITY. O.o

giphy.gif

 

Edited by spunko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spunko said:

Even big powerful housebuilders cannot force pikeys off their land. There was a recent situation near where my office is of a single "static caravan" moving in, installing huge ugly gates with horse heads on them, and a driveway. After a year or so of legal tangles, Bovis Homes relented and just let them stay. Literally could not evict a family of 4 pikeys from land THEY owned despite having £millions of available legal fees and the best laywers.

Now they have built their slaveboxes around the pikey caravan and just put trees up, no exageration. You have to laugh, otherwise you'd go crazy. PERSECUTED MINORITY. O.o

 

 

Could well be why at the start of the election campaign the Tories said they will be dealing with Pikeys.

Tory sponsors want them to deal with gypos. IMHO Police are too shit scared to do anything.

https://inews.co.uk/news/priti-patel-gypsies-travellers-halting-sites-evictions-police-1040494

Edited by Tdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tdog said:

Could well be why at the start of the election campaign the Tories said they will be dealing with Pikeys.

Tory sponsors want them to deal with gypos. IMHO Police are too shit scared to do anything.

https://inews.co.uk/news/priti-patel-gypsies-travellers-halting-sites-evictions-police-1040494

Pretty sure it's an EU thing, and haven't read the Surrender Agreement but I suspect it doesn't go far enough. Be interested to see if the Tories can still blame the EU though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, spunko said:

Now they have built their slaveboxes around the pikey caravan and just put trees up, no exageration. You have to laugh, otherwise you'd go crazy. PERSECUTED MINORITY. O.o

I used to live 400 metres from a gypsy site, i fucken hated walking past it incase the ones my age came out as it could have meant a fight ... not a chance id want my kid living near the dirty little cunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

As would they have also been told.

It's Treason May's mad housebuilding plan that has driven a coach and horses through planning.

The head of planning for Cornwall council was on the radio about three years' ago moaning how his department had been made impotent because for pretty much any application they turn down it will later be allowed by central government on appeal and the council ends up footing the legal bill.

It is ludicrous quite how many fields surrounding Cornish towns are now covered in concrete and hundreds or even thousands of new builds. Some Eco agenda; no wonder hedgehogs are disappearing.

And all contributing SFA to helping local people who can't afford a house to buy one.

At the same time they've made it harder for schools to expand to serve increased population. Our local (outstanding-rated) Catholic Primary school wanted to expand in order to serve the growing population. Wanted to add a few classrooms basically. The Government, in their wisdom has decided to let the local council decide and they decreed that due to traffic/parking issues they would not allow expansion. This is despite the school literally having a car park outside it whereas another, bigger, 3 form-entry primary school locally has zero parking and is on a heavily used road.  This of course had nothing to do with certain councillors whose grandchildren were refused a place at said school because they were non-Catholic and it was oversubscribed with Catholic applicants in those years, oh no. 

The school has no route to appeal and thus can't expand. They built the classrooms anyway, moved out of the old classrooms and converted them for other uses, eg. dance studio. 

Edit: Oh, and several councillors live on the nice, leafy streets surrounding the school. No conflict of interest there then. 

Edited by the gardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, spunko said:

You are talking in extremities that rarely apply though. A few pages back you were advocating the threshold to be at £300k (I think...?) and now you are using an example of £1m, even though only a tiny, tiny minority of boomers have £1m+ equity. At which price does one decide that such wealth is unfair and unearned? This honestly sounds like some sort of abstract socialist moralising, that one man's wealth is another man's destitution.

Anyway, I don't understand your desire for State intevention. If the state hadn't encouraged forever HPI, which has effectively put each and every citizen of this country into tens of thousands of pounds of debt, then perhaps you'd have a point. But as I said above the State cannot then go on to moralise over how Mrs Entitled Boomer has acquired a house with 6 bedrooms that has quadrupled in value in 15 years, as a direct result of their own policies and try to force her out into a smaller house because hang on a fucking minute there are young people who need your house more than you (who we've spent the last 20 years buttfucking, but ignore that, it's YOUR fault you greedy boomer). 

 

No I was stating that the current threshold is £325k.

Fact is if you have two parents living in a house worth a significant amount then you can inherit £1m tax free. 

My point all along is that it's crazy to tax unearned wealth at a rate below (or at zero) the rate of tax on earned income. 

It is not abstract socialist moralising, I would be in favour of the state being a maximum of 25% of the economy as advocated by Keynes but that would involve halving it. However, if we must fund the current status quo then this is a more equitable and better way of doing it. 

I'm not sure where you've come up with state intervention? The state already intervenes on this just the tax thresholds are higher. 

And I'll say it again, the increase in tax take from IHT would be offset with a reduction in income tax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.