politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories should take some consolation from Newport West – th
Comments
-
Most people apparently.IanB2 said:Yet inheritance tax is probably the most progressive tax of all. And who, given the choice, would choose to pay tax when alive than when dead?
Pay up to 40 per cent tax on your hard earned pension while you are alive - fine.
Place a tax on money or assets handed over as a gift to a relative or friend who never worked for it or earned it - even when said value of assets were never really earned by the bequeather (eg a house bought for a few grand now worth a million or more) - a national scandal and a tax on the dead.
Only about 10 per cent of estates last time I looked were subject to inheritance tax. The poor and middle class seem to love paying more income tax and vat and council tax etc while they are alive so the rich can leave more to their sixty five year old kids when they die.
But you are stealing our ‘family home’ they cry - yes the home you left 40 years ago!0 -
Mr. Sandpit (been working, oddly, hence slow reply), don't forget he got a podium finish there once...
Edited extra bit: just glanced at the F1 Twitter feed. Your Leclerc tip looking tasty.0 -
Mr. 16, increasing numbers of people are leaving home later, though, due to high property prices...0
-
Definitely agree as regards the character and personality of an individual. Everyone is the same - or more accurately everyone is different and the spread of difference is the same across groups.Harris_Tweed said:For me, there's a difference between talking about a group of identifiable Jewish or Irish people successfully acting together to advance shared interests, and implying that "(all) Jews are a powerful group". "Jewish lobby" is potentially problematic if there is no such defined group, but it's likely to be better than "The Jews".
In short.. assigning almost any characteristic or behaviour to a group of people based on their race or religion (or sexual orientation or hair colour or whatever) is likely to cause widespread offence because it will almost certainly not be universally true. Even if there is a proven higher propensity, one still shouldn't generalise.
Behaviour and views though? I think there one can sometimes make valid generalizations that are not stereotyping. For example, a very devout Catholic is likely to attend church and is unlikely to be supportive of abortion.0 -
Indeed he did. 3rd place in 2017. Should have been second, but Bottas got him on the line by less than a tenth of a second.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit (been working, oddly, hence slow reply), don't forget he got a podium finish there once...
Danil Kvyat is now being Danil Kvyat, stopping the session again.0 -
Yes I really like the Monty Hall.TrèsDifficile said:Got asked that question in two of my Oxford maths interviews (ChristChurch & Pembroke). Luckily I'd read about it in the Racing Post sport section two weeks previously.
How about "Estimate the horsepower of a grasshopper"?
Cambridge did that one.0 -
It is difficult. I've been shafted by the status quo for decades but the payoff is that I stand to eventually benefit at an indeterminate point in the future, so it would be unfortunate timing for me personally if the rules change just before I would otherwise receive an inheritance.MikeL said:
I wonder how many people in line to receive these inheritances have just stopped for one moment and contemplated what a Corbyn Government might mean for them personally.CarlottaVance said:
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
However, it will be better for my children, who haven't yet gone through the decades of being shafted, so I think I'd still take the trade.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, damned tight margin. Good commitment by Bottas, though.
Racing Point has the most F1 podium finishes, amongst its drivers, of any team. Which is weird.0 -
:-)AlastairMeeks said:There's a rap version of this paradox. Sir Mix-A-Lot likes big butts and he cannot lie. His brother does not like big butts and he cannot tell the truth...
Oh god. What's the punchline.
End up in the shit either way?0 -
i'm lost. so is guard 1 always telling truth and guard 2 always lying? the latter cant be true as saying "the other nothing but lies" would then be true which means it is false.Anorak said:
The D&D solutionkinabalu said:
:-)Sunil_Prasannan said:I always lie. In fact, I am lying to you now!
You've probably heard it but -
You reach a fork in the road, one way leads to paradise, the other to purgatory.
There are 2 creatures standing there. One always tells the truth, the other always lies. You know this but you do not know which is which.
You are allowed to ask one question (to one or the other, does not matter) the answer to which will tell you the fork to choose.
What is the question?
Guard 1:ONE OF US SPEAKS NOTHING BUT TRUTH
Guard 2:THE OTHER NOTHING BUT LIES
Wizard: ok, i know this, we have to ask..
Barbarian: *takes axe and kills the first guard*
Wizard: WHAT THE HELL!
Barbarian: *to remaining guard* is he dead
Guard 2:NO
barbarian: this one liar.0 -
“Racing Point has the most F1 podium finishes In Azerbaijan, amongst its drivers, of any team”Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, damned tight margin. Good commitment by Bottas, though.
Racing Point has the most F1 podium finishes, amongst its drivers, of any team. Which is weird.0 -
It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.brendan16 said:
Most people apparently.IanB2 said:Yet inheritance tax is probably the most progressive tax of all. And who, given the choice, would choose to pay tax when alive than when dead?
Pay up to 40 per cent tax on your hard earned pension while you are alive - fine.
Place a tax on money or assets handed over as a gift to a relative or friend who never worked for it or earned it - even when said value of assets were never really earned by the bequeather (eg a house bought for a few grand now worth a million or more) - a national scandal and a tax on the dead.
Only about 10 per cent of estates last time I looked were subject to inheritance tax. The poor and middle class seem to love paying more income tax and vat and council tax etc while they are alive so the rich can leave more to their sixty five year old kids when they die.
But you are stealing our ‘family home’ they cry - yes the home you left 40 years ago!
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.0 -
Mr. 64, the cop-out answer is that the 'one' or the 'other' could be either guard, so both statements can be correct.
Of course, one should simply ask "What would the other guard say is the correct thing to do?" and then do the opposite.0 -
Given that their core demographic are the property-owning chattering classes of north and west London, that proposal would be unlikely to have a positive effect on their vote share.noneoftheabove said:
It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.brendan16 said:
Most people apparently.IanB2 said:Yet inheritance tax is probably the most progressive tax of all. And who, given the choice, would choose to pay tax when alive than when dead?
Pay up to 40 per cent tax on your hard earned pension while you are alive - fine.
Place a tax on money or assets handed over as a gift to a relative or friend who never worked for it or earned it - even when said value of assets were never really earned by the bequeather (eg a house bought for a few grand now worth a million or more) - a national scandal and a tax on the dead.
Only about 10 per cent of estates last time I looked were subject to inheritance tax. The poor and middle class seem to love paying more income tax and vat and council tax etc while they are alive so the rich can leave more to their sixty five year old kids when they die.
But you are stealing our ‘family home’ they cry - yes the home you left 40 years ago!
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
Hopefully Labour will propose a massive increase in inheritance tax before the next election, then maybe the well-off luvvies and their kids who support them, might start to see what they’re really like underneath.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, aye, I did actually consider adding that, but... didn't. I left it to you to work out that subtle qualification0
-
I think if one accurately describes a factual increased likelihood, that's fine. Also, 'devout' - if not necessarily 'Catholic' - implies a choice to obey those requirements.kinabalu said:
Definitely agree as regards the character and personality of an individual. Everyone is the same - or more accurately everyone is different and the spread of difference is the same across groups.Harris_Tweed said:For me, there's a difference between talking about a group of identifiable Jewish or Irish people successfully acting together to advance shared interests, and implying that "(all) Jews are a powerful group". "Jewish lobby" is potentially problematic if there is no such defined group, but it's likely to be better than "The Jews".
In short.. assigning almost any characteristic or behaviour to a group of people based on their race or religion (or sexual orientation or hair colour or whatever) is likely to cause widespread offence because it will almost certainly not be universally true. Even if there is a proven higher propensity, one still shouldn't generalise.
Behaviour and views though? I think there one can sometimes make valid generalizations that are not stereotyping. For example, a very devout Catholic is likely to attend church and is unlikely to be supportive of abortion.
Jewishness also encompasses more than religion. It's harder to use the term "secular Catholic" than "secular Jew".
Maybe, therefore, I shouldn't have included 'religion' alongside race, sexual orientation and hair colour, in as much as it's more a matter of choice than the others.0 -
You might be surprised to find that many of the "metropolitan, chattering, liberal elite" are actually renters often with little capital. Some may be in line to inherit, but nearly all of them under 50 will realise how unfair life is on young people without capital wanting to work and live in the capital. If the money raised went to further increase the personal allowance it would attract those who can see the bigger picture.Sandpit said:
Given that their core demographic are the property-owning chattering classes of north and west London, that proposal would be unlikely to have a positive effect on their vote share.noneoftheabove said:
It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.brendan16 said:
Most people apparently.IanB2 said:Yet inheritance tax is probably the most progressive tax of all. And who, given the choice, would choose to pay tax when alive than when dead?
Pay up to 40 per cent tax on your hard earned pension while you are alive - fine.
Place a tax on money or assets handed over as a gift to a relative or friend who never worked for it or earned it - even when said value of assets were never really earned by the bequeather (eg a house bought for a few grand now worth a million or more) - a national scandal and a tax on the dead.
Only about 10 per cent of estates last time I looked were subject to inheritance tax. The poor and middle class seem to love paying more income tax and vat and council tax etc while they are alive so the rich can leave more to their sixty five year old kids when they die.
But you are stealing our ‘family home’ they cry - yes the home you left 40 years ago!
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
It would also give them an opportunity to argue against the status quo positions from both Tory and Labour, where the status quo is emphatically wrong, exactly what a pragmatic, change party should be looking for.0 -
Thought he was from Luton? What's he doing in the northwest? Bloody immigrants, coming up here taking jobs from the locals...Pulpstar said:Lennon's problem in the northwest will be the same as the greens/Lib Dem/Change UK ... dividing the two main blocks up as right/left- a right vote that is already taken up by a large portion (Brexit + Tories) is then further split between UKIP and Tommy Robinson.
His ultimate job may well be to deny UKIP a seat in the Northwest.0 -
Err, because without that subtle qualification the answer is different! (Almost certainly Mercedes, being the only team of two race winners, one of whom has been doing so for more than a decade).Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, aye, I did actually consider adding that, but... didn't. I left it to you to work out that subtle qualification
0 -
People think it's unfair because "it's already been taxed once" during earning and accumulation when alive by the now deceased testator. They see it as double taxation.noneoftheabove said:It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
A fallacy since what is raised in IHT is inherently not raised in lifetime taxes.
And ask those same people which do you prefer -
(i) to pay 20% tax when alive and then 5% when dead? or
(ii) to pay 25% tax when alive?
They will answer (i).
But that's people for you.0 -
But that’s not the question. The question is do you want to pay 40% when alive, then 40% more when dead?kinabalu said:
People think it's unfair because "it's already been taxed once" during earning and accumulation when alive by the now deceased testator. They see it as double taxation.noneoftheabove said:It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
A fallacy since what is raised in IHT is inherently not raised in lifetime taxes.
And ask those same people which do you prefer -
(i) to pay 20% tax when alive and then 5% when dead? or
(ii) to pay 25% tax when alive?
They will answer (i).
But that's people for you.0 -
x
I can see why "Jewish Lobby" would be controversial in a way that "Israel Lobby" wouldn't.kinabalu said:
I don't have an issue with your "Jews as a powerful group" in the context you meant it.Sean_F said:One could cite plenty of other examples such as the Tutsis, or American Liberians, or the Armenians in WWI.
Just got me thinking (again) about the subject of antisemitism, which is of course topical.
Another example. Lots of talk a few weeks ago on here about how the very powerful Irish Lobby in the US could torpedo our efforts to get a good trade deal with them if we were perceived to have stiffed the Republic on Brexit. Comments were not seen as in any way anti-Irish.
Whereas talk of the Jewish Lobby, I venture, would meet with some disapproval.
"William Safire wrote in 1993 that in the United Kingdom "Jewish lobby" is used as an "even more pejorative" term for "the 'Israel lobby'". Susan Jacobs of Manchester Metropolitan University writes that the phrase "Jewish lobby", when used "without mentioning other 'lobbies' or differentiating Jews who have different political positions on a number of questions, including Israel and Palestine", is a contemporary form of the fear of a Jewish conspiracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby0 -
Ask those who own property whether they’d prefer to hand it to their children or to the government?noneoftheabove said:
You might be surprised to find that many of the "metropolitan, chattering, liberal elite" are actually renters often with little capital. Some may be in line to inherit, but nearly all of them under 50 will realise how unfair life is on young people without capital wanting to work and live in the capital. If the money raised went to further increase the personal allowance it would attract those who can see the bigger picture.Sandpit said:
Given that their core demographic are the property-owning chattering classes of north and west London, that proposal would be unlikely to have a positive effect on their vote share.noneoftheabove said:
It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.brendan16 said:
Most people apparently.IanB2 said:Yet inheritance tax is probably the most progressive tax of all. And who, given the choice, would choose to pay tax when alive than when dead?
Pay up to 40 per cent tax on your hard earned pension while you are alive - fine.
Place a tax on money or assets handed over as a gift to a relative or friend who never worked for it or earned it - even when said value of assets were never really earned by the bequeather (eg a house bought for a few grand now worth a million or more) - a national scandal and a tax on the dead.
Only about 10 per cent of estates last time I looked were subject to inheritance tax. The poor and middle class seem to love paying more income tax and vat and council tax etc while they are alive so the rich can leave more to their sixty five year old kids when they die.
But you are stealing our ‘family home’ they cry - yes the home you left 40 years ago!
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
It would also give them an opportunity to argue against the status quo positions from both Tory and Labour, where the status quo is emphatically wrong, exactly what a pragmatic, change party should be looking for.
Ask the younger generation whether they would like to inherit from their parents to give them a chance of buying something in London, or whether they’d prefer to see their parents’ house taken by the State for the greater good of society?0 -
Yes, religion does not quite sit there with the others. Well it does, but just a little apart.Harris_Tweed said:I think if one accurately describes a factual increased likelihood, that's fine. Also, 'devout' - if not necessarily 'Catholic' - implies a choice to obey those requirements.
Jewishness also encompasses more than religion. It's harder to use the term "secular Catholic" than "secular Jew".
Maybe, therefore, I shouldn't have included 'religion' alongside race, sexual orientation and hair colour, in as much as it's more a matter of choice than the others.
Any case, totally with you, most of this stuff is dodgy and runs the range from misleading generalization through lazy stereotyping to racism.
Caveat Emptor.0 -
Gone back to Poll-land.....brokenwheel said:Where are all the polls?
0 -
The question should be:Sandpit said:
But that’s not the question. The question is do you want to pay 40% when alive, then 40% more when dead?kinabalu said:
People think it's unfair because "it's already been taxed once" during earning and accumulation when alive by the now deceased testator. They see it as double taxation.noneoftheabove said:It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
A fallacy since what is raised in IHT is inherently not raised in lifetime taxes.
And ask those same people which do you prefer -
(i) to pay 20% tax when alive and then 5% when dead? or
(ii) to pay 25% tax when alive?
They will answer (i).
But that's people for you.
We need to raise an extra £1m for the next big of government spending. Should we take £1,000 out of 1,000 people earning £25,000 a year working 50 hours a week or should we take an extra £1m from 1 typically already wealthy person who inherits £2.5m?0 -
Yes lol, fat chance of taxes replacing others. Will just add to them.Sandpit said:
But that’s not the question. The question is do you want to pay 40% when alive, then 40% more when dead?kinabalu said:
People think it's unfair because "it's already been taxed once" during earning and accumulation when alive by the now deceased testator. They see it as double taxation.noneoftheabove said:It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
A fallacy since what is raised in IHT is inherently not raised in lifetime taxes.
And ask those same people which do you prefer -
(i) to pay 20% tax when alive and then 5% when dead? or
(ii) to pay 25% tax when alive?
They will answer (i).
But that's people for you.0 -
That would be a damn good way of pitching a much higher rate of inheritance tax, perhaps with a higher band, particulary if income tax allowances were adjusted to offset some of the increased take. We could have more tax, and hopefully share the nations wealth more fairly too.brendan16 said:Only about 10 per cent of estates last time I looked were subject to inheritance tax. The poor and middle class seem to love paying more income tax and vat and council tax etc while they are alive so the rich can leave more to their sixty five year old kids when they die.
0 -
Mr. Above, assuming the money isn't set up in a way to avoid inheritance tax.0
-
"Ask the younger generation whether they would like to inherit from their parents to give them a chance of buying something in London, or whether they’d prefer to see their parents’ house taken by the State for the greater good of society?"
People who inherit are generally not the younger generations! Far more typically pensioners who already have plentiful assets.0 -
Whatever happened to speaking to people on all sides?williamglenn said:
Daily Mail reporting the John Bercow has also turned down the same invitation, can’t imagine Her Majesty is too impressed with that.0 -
Where have all the pollsters goneMarqueeMark said:
Gone back to Poll-land.....brokenwheel said:Where are all the polls?
Gone to canvas every one0 -
In isolation that works just fine - but in aggregate, having a smaller number of people pay an increasing share of the tax burden results in those few changing their behaviour to avoid the taxes.noneoftheabove said:
The question should be:Sandpit said:
But that’s not the question. The question is do you want to pay 40% when alive, then 40% more when dead?kinabalu said:
People think it's unfair because "it's already been taxed once" during earning and accumulation when alive by the now deceased testator. They see it as double taxation.noneoftheabove said:It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
A fallacy since what is raised in IHT is inherently not raised in lifetime taxes.
And ask those same people which do you prefer -
(i) to pay 20% tax when alive and then 5% when dead? or
(ii) to pay 25% tax when alive?
They will answer (i).
But that's people for you.
We need to raise an extra £1m for the next big of government spending. Should we take £1,000 out of 1,000 people earning £25,000 a year working 50 hours a week or should we take an extra £1m from 1 typically already wealthy person who inherits £2.5m?
Edit: also note that IT is levied on the estate of the deceased, not on an individual inheritance.0 -
A couple of weeks ago 2019 was odds-on favourite to be the year of the next election. It has been matched this afternoon at 3.6.
I'd say there are excellent chances of it heading back towards evens in the coming weeks.0 -
Yes, a big difference between 'Jewish' and 'Israel'. Caveat, half the world's Jews live in Israel.TrèsDifficile said:I can see why "Jewish Lobby" would be controversial in a way that "Israel Lobby" wouldn't.
"William Safire wrote in 1993 that in the United Kingdom "Jewish lobby" is used as an "even more pejorative" term for "the 'Israel lobby'". Susan Jacobs of Manchester Metropolitan University writes that the phrase "Jewish lobby", when used "without mentioning other 'lobbies' or differentiating Jews who have different political positions on a number of questions, including Israel and Palestine", is a contemporary form of the fear of a Jewish conspiracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby
And a big difference between 'Lobby' in the specific sense of a known and above board organization doing its thing and in the potentially rather more nebulous and sinister sense of a group working together in secret.
This is why all of these cases really have to be taken individually on their own merits. Tedious, but it has to be done.0 -
New Thread
0 -
Mr. Meeks, mildly surprised the odds have lengthened again.0
-
Corbyn has got some manhole covers to have a look at in Azerbaijan......Scott_P said:0 -
And we are not talking about confiscating estates - merely raising the tax from nothing (on most estates) to a little bit.noneoftheabove said:"Ask the younger generation whether they would like to inherit from their parents to give them a chance of buying something in London, or whether they’d prefer to see their parents’ house taken by the State for the greater good of society?"
People who inherit are generally not the younger generations! Far more typically pensioners who already have plentiful assets.
It was widely believed in the 19th and early 20th centuries that inheritance of wealth stifled initiative and encouraged idleness - people had a duty to work and make their own way in the world and those who relied on unearned wealth had no incentive to engage in productive employment. Novels like Brideshead Revisited portrayed the rich as idle loafers whose lives consisted entirely of pleasure seeking.0 -
I can see your point if it were income tax, that it can change incentives and behaviour which would be bad for the economy. Avoiding inheritance tax could be made much difficult, especially property wealth, so I doubt there would be any significant behavioural impact if enforcement was increased and loopholes/legal incentives to minimise inheritance tax withdrawn.Sandpit said:
In isolation that works just fine - but in aggregate, having a smaller number of people pay an increasing share of the tax burden results in those few changing their behaviour to avoid the taxes.noneoftheabove said:
The question should be:Sandpit said:
But that’s not the question. The question is do you want to pay 40% when alive, then 40% more when dead?kinabalu said:
People think it's unfair because "it's already been taxed once" during earning and accumulation when alive by the now deceased testator. They see it as double taxation.noneoftheabove said:It is one of the mysteries of political opinion that people are so opposed to inheritance tax, especially those that have few or no assets, complain about the status quo, but then would view increasing inheritance tax (or even merely closing down loopholes used by the seriously wealthy) as taxing the dead or double taxation.
Enforcing and upping the rate of inheritance tax is the sort of policy Change UK could have adopted, being clearly distinctive, re-distributive and something that neither of the main parties are willing to touch for fear of alienating their voter base.
A fallacy since what is raised in IHT is inherently not raised in lifetime taxes.
And ask those same people which do you prefer -
(i) to pay 20% tax when alive and then 5% when dead? or
(ii) to pay 25% tax when alive?
They will answer (i).
But that's people for you.
We need to raise an extra £1m for the next big of government spending. Should we take £1,000 out of 1,000 people earning £25,000 a year working 50 hours a week or should we take an extra £1m from 1 typically already wealthy person who inherits £2.5m?
The changes in behaviour that benefit an economy will be those that create incentives for young people to work hard, get educated and skilled, build up capital and play a meaningful role in society. Having fewer and fewer people owning properties, with large property portfolios passed down within a small group of families is a terrible way to run a modern economy.0 -
That is awesome, thanks for sharing. Part 1 is easy, part 2 is beautiful.TheWhiteRabbit said:
My favorite is the "boy and girl problem", specifically what I like to call the 'Jason' variant.TrèsDifficile said:
Got asked that question in two of my Oxford maths interviews (ChristChurch & Pembroke). Luckily I'd read about it in the Racing Post sport section two weeks previously.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Go for the Monty Hall Paradox if you really want your mind blown.TrèsDifficile said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReFhu8KYbmUkinabalu said:
Ah is it a real old chestnut? OK, sorry. I heard it for the first time the other day - on Midsomer Murders oddly.IanB2 said:Which path would he (the other one) choose, then take the opposite. Old conundrum.
Still, glad I know it now, since if I ever find myself in that position ...
In Part 1, the question is:
"Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?"
And you have to reconcile your common sense, of 50%, with the correct answer, of 33%.
Then in Part 2, the question is:
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. The boy's name is Jason. What is the probability that both children are boys?
And you have to reconcile your answer of 33% with the fact the probability is now 49.99% or so....0 -
Thinks.TheWhiteRabbit said:
My favorite is the "boy and girl problem", specifically what I like to call the 'Jason' variant.TrèsDifficile said:
Got asked that question in two of my Oxford maths interviews (ChristChurch & Pembroke). Luckily I'd read about it in the Racing Post sport section two weeks previously.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Go for the Monty Hall Paradox if you really want your mind blown.TrèsDifficile said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReFhu8KYbmUkinabalu said:
Ah is it a real old chestnut? OK, sorry. I heard it for the first time the other day - on Midsomer Murders oddly.IanB2 said:Which path would he (the other one) choose, then take the opposite. Old conundrum.
Still, glad I know it now, since if I ever find myself in that position ...
In Part 1, the question is:
"Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?"
And you have to reconcile your common sense, of 50%, with the correct answer, of 33%.....
Thinks.
Ah.
There are three possible outcomes:
1: Child a is a boy and child b is a girl
2: Child a is a girl and child b is a boy
3: Child a is a boy and child b is a boy
If we assume all three outcomes are equally likely, then outcome 3 has a probability of 33%.
Did I get it right?
0 -
Yes and No.0
-