'Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society'

[Bargepole45]

Having just paid an enormous tax bill, I frankly am fed up with hearing this. There are lots of civilised countries that have a far lower tax burden than the UK. It's just a form of blackmail designed to make contributors believe that there is no other way other than to pay sky high taxes to subsidise people's crap life choices.

Have too many kids and can't afford them? No problem, the state steps in. Have a terrible lifestyle and don't look after your health at all? No problem, the NHS will treat you. Spent all your money with wild abandon and have nothing left to pay for your care when you get old? Don't fret, the state will fund the same care home as someone that has saved all their life.

Don't people understand that these 'safety nets' just facilitate reckless behaviour? We can have a civilised society where people aren't cushioned from all of their bad decision making. I say this as someone from a background where I didn't have much money and I am so fed up with people pretending that poor people don't know that an apple is healthier than a chocolate bar or that it's a good idea to actually attend school. It's insulting and disempowering to keep making excuses for people that simply aren't incentivised to make different, better choices.

Oh God, yawn. Why don't you just post "I am entitled with no compassion" and save us all the bother. Your examples are so stupid, all about people who "deserve" to be destitute because they have "too many kids" or shouldn't have health care because of their terrible unhealthy eating blah blah blah. But misfortune can strike anyone, not just the people you belittle.

So you’re all for increased crime levels, associated fear, gated communities etc?

So you'd just like to let the kids suffer because of their parents' decisions?
Yeah, that isn't what civilisation is.

Yep. These people don't actually want to live in the societies they talk about creating, they just seem to enjoy fantasising about punitive systems and everyone recognising how wonderful they are for earning a living. I've lived in places without these safety nets. You don't want that, OP, trust me.

Agreed. Some people don’t have this option but many do.

I think @Happysallie means her tax bill this week is 50k because it's the deadline for paying annual assessment this Friday 3-st Jan and not that she pays every week. And that is a fair chunk especially if she's not received good service.

"Ironically, good for me isn't a million miles away from the socialist mantra "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Cool, I guess you'll be giving away any future surplus income then?

Yes - it's called the Victorian/ Edwardian era and it's how we lived as a nation pre welfare state being set up in 1945.
There were mass slums, poverty and disease.
Obviously people didn't like it and voted in a government post WW2 that would help the masses live a better life. Especially after their sacrifices in two world wars.

This previous lower standard of living didn't change the way people behaved.

I say at the start of the post ‘policies vary by country’ - they are referring to the Scandinavian countries, and my post refers to those countries, where removal of IHT was relatively recent.

You have absolutely no idea whether my landlords have the same interest rate or LTV you were referring to either. You were providing a benefit of the doubt with absolutely no knowledge.

It goes without saying that the guy charging basically nothing owns the house outright, it isn’t mortgaged at all.

The second property I referred to was theirs, lived in until around 5 years ago when they relocated. I don’t know their interest rate, or the size of their mortgage, and neither do you.

If it’s anything other than the specifics you gave, they’re working in very lucrative jobs (the kind that involve company paid relocations) and making a tidy profit from their renters.

Really, so you’d work and then also provide 24hr care. So you’d stay up all night, and then log on for work?

That’s what we do, in fairness, but what you’re describing is a level of tiredness most people can’t comprehend and wouldn’t casually suggest doing.

Or, if “no payment is needed” you’d quit your job and not claim carers allowance so you could survive without the salary you’ve just lost?

Shame they never bothered to pay for it, and dumped the liabilities on future generations who never benefit from such state largesse.

Well they didn't have a choice. Work or starve.

But they have different policies as they are different countries.

Exactly. As it should be. That is why people go to work. I am sure they would prefer to be on a beach in the Maldives.

As I say in my post, but their reasons for removing IHT were similar - and, it doesn’t stop people handing down large estates as claimed by the PP.

I’m not sure why you’ve got a bee in your bonnet, I haven’t said anything controversial nor untrue.

The PP was generally referring to Scandinavian countries, so my comment referred to this too.

Happy to discuss one in depth, if you prefer, which are you most deeply acquainted with?

We have high crime now and high benefits. Therefore benefits do not reduce crime.
I am for zero tolerance on crime and more prisons ( use the money saved on welfare to fund this).

Crime was lower before the welfare state was introduced. Again, it hasn't worked!

I can't believe some would seemingly like to wind the clock back 100+ years. Yes, of course there people who play the system, but there are a lot of innocent and needy people who are going to get thrown under a bus in the rush to slash benefits...

I would happily give up the £116 pip to have my pre tumour leg back.

People seem to think we enjoy it but the pip payment is no consolation when you lose your old self who was healthy.

Incorrect.

With interest rates running around 4.5% and BTL mortgages over 5% then the only scenario where they are making a huge profit and beating what they could earn with their money in the bank is it they're on a low fixed rate mortgage which presumably would be coming to an end pretty soon.

The guy who owned the house could have made over £11k a year by selling the house and putting the money in the bank. No landlord responsibilities, no maintenance costs etc.

I wasn't providing anyone with the benefit of the doubt. Just stating the most likely scenario. You seem determined to pretend that landlords should tie up all their money in a house and charge people a nominal rent whilst ignoring the fact that they could put their money in the bank and make more money, let alone invest it in stocks and shares etc.

I wish people learnt about the cost of capital in schools.

All children are at the mercy of their parents decisions and to a certain extent suffer for them. I'm not on benefits but I would have to give my existing children less if I had lots more kids. Not just money either. Less time, less energy, less attention.... How much can the state shield children from this? I think you have never really lived amongst poverty if you think that money is even the most important factor in all this.

Historically interest rates were so low and debt was low - so some people bought a second property, including some who were not that rich. Now with higher interest rates and a regulatory environment that is anti small time landlord, people will naturally sell up. Unless they bought many years ago and have the mortgages almost paid off.
The time you invest in looking after a property as a small time landlord and all the hassle is not worth it. It is a financial risk and with the new regulations, you might not get your property back. Cash in bank, on the other hand, is guaranteed by the state even against bankruptcy of the lender. There are so many platforms now (a relatively new thing) where you can choose lenders who offer good rates very easily and they have the software to print the tax forms etc. It is literally far less hassle and more lucrative, right now. The only area where being a landlord seems to still be lucrative is renting back to the state to house immigrants or student accommodation (latter I assume might require a lot of yearly maintenance).

Things do change very quickly though. Imagine if Gordon Brown had not sold off our gold?! That cost us over 53 billion. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Labour always do this????
For the last 14 yrs everyone’s tax burden went up . I pay tax as PAYE , however my husband was self employed and we had to save up to pay his estimated tax a year in advance. It is doable and the price we pay for taking children out of poverty. And now thankfully the NHS waiting lists are coming down.
i for one wish the tax was higher if it means more are lifted out of poverty and NHS lists are coming down .
For goodness sake there was a poor woman last week asking how much we had all cut back and was missing out on meals so that she could be responsible and pay bills and debt .
smith entitled t**t

Don’t you get Child Allowance then?