Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

duke63 wrote:Don’t have to forcibly take wealth away. I was reading recently that a massive proportion of wealth is inherited rather than self earned so there is the answer. Make it impossible to leave large amounts to next of kin without paying tax on it.

They are not handing it over by choice how else would you get it ?
All taxation is the forcible removal of wealth , look what happens if you don't pay .
What if I give my son all my wealth before I die , that too would ruin your idea.

A person's home, wealth, assets, etc. - these things amount to the legacy that people leave to their children, so that they may continue to take care of their family, long after they are no longer alive.

Jack....there's nowt wrong with what you're suggesting. My Mom used to cash-out certain investments for me & my sister from time-to-time...her rationale being so that she could see herself our benefiting from them.

....Not that she could actually see me, 'cos I live on a different frickin' continent, but you get the idea..

Oh, and I almost forgot......"Spend it on anything you want...just promise me you'll never buy a motorcycle!!"

Er...

There are ways round inheritance tax especially for the wealthiest but if you stopped ALL those then inherited wealth could not continue.

I appreciate it’s unlikely to happen as wealth equals power but at some point our current system of living will no longer prove sustainable and then extreme decisions will have to be made.

They managed it in Star Trek

Managed what in Star Trek??

Then what about people like Bill Gates at 18 he had next to nothing and he is now one of the wealthiest people on the planet , I am not aware of any tax scandals so I imagine he has paid what was legally due , he could undoubtedly use his enormous wealth to further any political agenda he may have , or to manipulate markets etc in his favour , I am not saying he does but he has the capacity to , this definitely makes him one of the elite . Inherited wealth has played no part in his success .

In order to stop inherited wealth you would have to stop people buying things for or giving things to their children , I don't see an ethical or moral way to do that .

They managed to create a utopian society in Star Trek , they neglected to portray all the Harry Mudd type characters that would be around trying to take advantage , they also neglected to portray what would become of people like me if I had access to a holodeck and a replicator . They have also managed to solve the energy crisis .

Anything gifted to offspring within 7 years of death is taxable.

not a problem , I give my child everything I own at birth as they are a minor I retain administrative control until they reach 21 . Put everything in trust for your child at birth but retain control of the trust until death or retirement . There are just too many ways around it to make it a practicable solution and it still doesn't stop people like Mr Gates .

Governments will find ways to tax you and I but make sure they retain their wealth and power. They are already struggling to raise enough revenue from income tax withso many people on low wages.

The problem is we no longer make anything ALL our heavy industry has been dismantled - Coal, Steel , Shipbuilding etc , not only that but we have allowed foreign investors to take control of british companies and now all the profits flow overseas instead of staying in the UK , look whats happening to GKN its about to be ripped apart by Melrose Industries and 4 men stand to profit by £285 million between them , even though they have 20 years worth of work lined up the new owners will only guarantee 5 years in the UK and they won't put that in writing , which to me means they will renege on that deal as soon as they can . The government are going to allow this even though GKN has MoD contracts and the MoD have said that there are national security issues surrounding the sale . I am all for the free movement of goods , it is necessary as if goods do not cross borders armies will , this obviously necessitates the movement of capital ( to pay for the goods ) , I do not believe that the movement of capital should be unregulated across borders , I do not believe that it should be legal for the likes of sir Phillip Green to transfer millions of pounds out of the country just to avoid tax or indeed for any non-investment purposes . I also do not believe that the free movement of people is a good thing , it too should be regulated , not because of migration in or out but because in the eyes of the law a corporation is a person .

A corporation is not a person in the eyes of the law. The whole basis of corporate law is that it’s a separate entity from its owners. That’s precisely why it’s easy to have a country based and trading in one country but paying tax in another. Profits should be taxed in the country where they are made rather than moved around to suit the shareholders.

Corporations are universally treated by the law as ‘legal persons’, which implies that corporate assets and liabilities are ‘locked in’ and, hence, separate from shareholder assets and liabilities. Corporate personhood ensures that corporations have certain rights, including especially the rights to own property, enter contracts, and commit torts in their own names. It also means that shareholders own shares of stock, but they do not own corporations; nor do they own the assets of corporations.

full article here : https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-b ... ompany-law


It is my understanding that person is defined in the varied and several acts and statutes as including corporations , Her Majesty and the Duke of Cornwall . A person can also be property and not a living entity as evidenced by the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 , Section 3 , Subsection 2 .

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - Person” includes a body of persons whether incorporated or not.

As you rightly state the corporation is distinct and separate from its shareholders , but legally it is treated as a person in its own right . I therefore maintain that in the eyes of the law a corporation is a person . As I have stated the right to free movement of people is defined in the various acts statutes and treaties as the free movement of persons which includes corporations which is why they are able to avoid taxation by having an office in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands or wherever suits their tax needs.

Jack wrote:Corporations are universally treated by the law as ‘legal persons’, which implies that corporate assets and liabilities are ‘locked in’ and, hence, separate from shareholder assets and liabilities.

Pretty much nails it right there....especially the part about seperation of business vs. personal.

I'd probably substitute "person" with "entity"....avoids any misinterpretation.

It could be argued that if you apply the maxim "Everything not included must necessarily be excluded" then I am NOT a person as I am not a corporation or Her Majesty Or the Duke of Cornwall or property and those are the only legal definitions of "person" contained in the various acts statutes and treaties that I have been able to find .

Jesus this was a heavy topic.

I'm too thick to understand, but I'm not religious. Is that a paradox?

Wow this all kicked off

Sorta stopped reading after the millionth post

But from what i did read in my personal views

Screw religion. Big bang all the way! I understand it for people to think theirs a reason to life but my personal thought is we were a mere evolution of animal. We had dinos, we had sea creatures that were bigger than whales, we evoled from monkey's and now we are screwing over the planet. The planet will kill us for its own survival and the process will statt again until the sun gobbles us up!!

But everyone has their own views on this

As for abortions and something else that i cant remember. Abortions are fine however it shouldnt be the norm. We have so many different products out their to stop unwanted babies from happening, education needs to be better. I personally dont understand why we should pay for people to have kids. Its crazy. They choose to have them thats their problem. Freddies baby has nothing to do with me and i dont care for it why should i pay for it, freddie needs to man TFU and provide for it, not me

Capital punishment. What a wuestion been talkinh about this on FB recently. My views are simple. If a terriost decides to walk into a English school full of our kids and decides to blow the feck outta the place due to what we have done to his people, even though hes Kevin from across the road, born in the same hospital as you, lived, raised and educated in the same estates, schools as you, but it fails to detonate and the police catch him, then its death row. Pretty simple. Unsure why people got so upset and do goody on me. If a man decides to rape women, children, or kill then its death row.

Why do people get so upset with all this, feck 'em, i personally wouldnt want to help them. Who would buy a house next to a known pedo, or a mass murdering son of a bi?ch!!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The only problem I have with capital punishment is the chances of executing an innocent person. The legal system is far from perfect in any country.

Also is it really a deterrent? Are the stated in the US that have capital punishment experiencing dramatically lower violent crime rates??

The time and energy should be put into education and prevention of these crimes rather than dealing with the aftermath. I know that’s an easy sentence to say but a very hard one to facilitate.

@Rossgo.

The blue whale is generally considered to be the largest animal that has ever lived.
They get up to (and over) 110ft long.....the irony is that the truly largest of them are too big to measure due to their being too big to fcuk with.