The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[HCZ_Reborn]

Authority is bad, dude. Think about it. Authority is for children who don't know better and have to learn. And even then, it wouldn't be necessary if we lived in a non-fucked existence of our own creation. The "lessons" we teach our kids are designed to help them cope in a cesspit, not in the natural world God made. Our contempt for our fellow man, superseded by our lust for the inventions of man (money) makes us masters of everything that's wrong, it helps us conquer the symptoms but never finds a cure. You should know that as a Christian, but plainly you don't. Why is that?

You say I question authority because I have a fucked up worldview. Okay then, I'll show you mine if you show me yours. State and compare. Our two worldviews. Go.

I know this isn’t addressed to me, but I don’t question your world view what I question is your view of humanity that seemingly informs your world view.


I’ve never been completely sure as to whether you believe authority or governance creates evil in men’s hearts or whether only people that naturally have evil in their hearts could want to create something as evil as government.

There is no reason in my view to trust authority and if it’s decrees are counterintuitive, then it should be questioned

My view is that man is governed by self interest, whether directly through self advancement or indirectly through the advancement of those around them. That self interest is in my view responsible for the collective pooling of resources in a society that leads to structures like government. That self interest can lead to authoritarian over reach, corruption and cruelty inflicted on others, but the cost/benefit analysis tells me as does human nature that an imperfect system of laws and elected law makers is preferable to simply having faith in the benevolence of my fellow man.

I don’t believe morality is given to us by a creator that in my view doesn’t exist, I think there’s enough historical evidence to prove that it’s not innate at all.

I also find it interesting that you show contempt for human authority, but seem to show some regard for the authority that a deity wields. Assuming that you are correct about this being’s existence, can you give me a reason why its authority should carry more weight?

[Ollie the Optimist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze3xen88g8o

So if my maths is right she owns land worth £3.5m. Where's that tiny violin?
Obviously she could sign it over now and then all she has to do is live 7 years. If she's going to give them it anyway

The value of the land and income generated from it are two completely different things. The amount of people saying “oh just sell some land then to pay for the tax” is maddening. Who would buy a small amount of land other than to build houses potentially meaning our farming land decreases and we become more reliant on food production overseas.

If you have a farm worth in this example of 3.5 million but only generates an income of say 50k a year, if you then sell land to pay the tax, you further reduce the land available to make an income so lower your income. They could of course sell up but the only people who will likely buy are the already large farms such as James Dyson or private equity funds in the city, both of which I think labour want to avoid gaining more land.

One labour minister yesterday (I think it could even have been cabinet minister for farming) said that this would mean more young people could buy farms and realise their dream of being a farmer. Young people can’t afford a 1 bed flat in zone 6, where the fuck are they going to get several million to buy a farm? If they have that, again I don’t those are the people labour want to own farms.

If their policy was to tax those who bought farms to avoid IHT such as Clarkson (even though he has done a huge amount of good for farmers), they could have shaped a policy on that basis, probably along the lines of that if farming if your main source of income, it’s exempt from IHT. The likes of clarkson & Dyson wouldn’t be able to argue farming is their main source of income and most would probably support that policy. You can then go slightly further and say that if the children sell the farm in a certain period of time after death, say 10 years, then IHT is liable.

It is also not just land that is included in the value for IHT purposes, it is the crops in the field, the seeds/fertalisers purchased to run the farm for that year and even animals. One farmer on news yesterday said he has around 3 million in cattle before the land etc. he would be liable yet dairy farmers make fuck all, were do you think they will find tens of thousands for this tax? They wont, they’ll become even more unprofitable and we’ll lose valuable farms to big corporations or the wealthiest land owners.

[The Wengerbabies]

The value of the land and income generated from it are two completely different things. The amount of people saying “oh just sell some land then to pay for the tax” is maddening. Who would buy a small amount of land other than to build houses potentially meaning our farming land decreases and we become more reliant on food production overseas.

If you have a farm worth in this example of 3.5 million but only generates an income of say 50k a year, if you then sell land to pay the tax, you further reduce the land available to make an income so lower your income. They could of course sell up but the only people who will likely buy are the already large farms such as James Dyson or private equity funds in the city, both of which I think labour want to avoid gaining more land.

One labour minister yesterday (I think it could even have been cabinet minister for farming) said that this would mean more young people could buy farms and realise their dream of being a farmer. Young people can’t afford a 1 bed flat in zone 6, where the fuck are they going to get several million to buy a farm? If they have that, again I don’t those are the people labour want to own farms.

If their policy was to tax those who bought farms to avoid IHT such as Clarkson (even though he has done a huge amount of good for farmers), they could have shaped a policy on that basis, probably along the lines of that if farming if your main source of income, it’s exempt from IHT. The likes of clarkson & Dyson wouldn’t be able to argue farming is their main source of income and most would probably support that policy. You can then go slightly further and say that if the children sell the farm in a certain period of time after death, say 10 years, then IHT is liable.

It is also not just land that is included in the value for IHT purposes, it is the crops in the field, the seeds/fertalisers purchased to run the farm for that year and even animals. One farmer on news yesterday said he has around 3 million in cattle before the land etc. he would be liable yet dairy farmers make fuck all, were do you think they will find tens of thousands for this tax? They wont, they’ll become even more unprofitable and we’ll lose valuable farms to big corporations or the wealthiest land owners.

[The Wengerbabies]

And in case two tier Keir wasn't obvious enough https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...semitic-convoy

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze3xen88g8o

So if my maths is right she owns land worth £3.5m. Where's that tiny violin?
Obviously she could sign it over now and then all she has to do is live 7 years. If she's going to give them it anyway

So you condone criminality? Another interesting Christian twist. If the state is allowed to rob them, why is it illegal for me to? Or you? If they own that land, if they bought it, worked it, as in actual work - not sitting in a fucking office, why is it reasonable for office dicks to steal the value of their investment and labour? Explain.

[Niall_Quinn]

I know this isn’t addressed to me, but I don’t question your world view what I question is your view of humanity that seemingly informs your world view.


I’ve never been completely sure as to whether you believe authority or governance creates evil in men’s hearts or whether only people that naturally have evil in their hearts could want to create something as evil as government.

There is no reason in my view to trust authority and if it’s decrees are counterintuitive, then it should be questioned

My view is that man is governed by self interest, whether directly through self advancement or indirectly through the advancement of those around them. That self interest is in my view responsible for the collective pooling of resources in a society that leads to structures like government. That self interest can lead to authoritarian over reach, corruption and cruelty inflicted on others, but the cost/benefit analysis tells me as does human nature that an imperfect system of laws and elected law makers is preferable to simply having faith in the benevolence of my fellow man.

I don’t believe morality is given to us by a creator that in my view doesn’t exist, I think there’s enough historical evidence to prove that it’s not innate at all.

I also find it interesting that you show contempt for human authority, but seem to show some regard for the authority that a deity wields. Assuming that you are correct about this being’s existence, can you give me a reason why its authority should carry more weight?

Hmm, that's an interesting response, genuinely. I didn't say God was an entity, but I am nowhere near arrogant enough to assume I'm the pinnacle of reality, that there is nothing above me in the food chain. And developments in physics are quite interesting too. No, God definitely exists, that can't be denied and it's ridiculous it was ever denied. We're not on a useful path to find God at present though and we can't get on that path until we are eventually adults instead of children. Human nature is not the same as human experience. You can take any nature and subject it to subversive experience and destroy the nature and turn it to a self fulfilling outcome. Then you can use that outcome to explain away the subversion. And don't confuse the church with God, you should never do that.

[Niall_Quinn]

The value of the land and income generated from it are two completely different things. The amount of people saying “oh just sell some land then to pay for the tax” is maddening. Who would buy a small amount of land other than to build houses potentially meaning our farming land decreases and we become more reliant on food production overseas.

If you have a farm worth in this example of 3.5 million but only generates an income of say 50k a year, if you then sell land to pay the tax, you further reduce the land available to make an income so lower your income. They could of course sell up but the only people who will likely buy are the already large farms such as James Dyson or private equity funds in the city, both of which I think labour want to avoid gaining more land.

One labour minister yesterday (I think it could even have been cabinet minister for farming) said that this would mean more young people could buy farms and realise their dream of being a farmer. Young people can’t afford a 1 bed flat in zone 6, where the fuck are they going to get several million to buy a farm? If they have that, again I don’t those are the people labour want to own farms.

If their policy was to tax those who bought farms to avoid IHT such as Clarkson (even though he has done a huge amount of good for farmers), they could have shaped a policy on that basis, probably along the lines of that if farming if your main source of income, it’s exempt from IHT. The likes of clarkson & Dyson wouldn’t be able to argue farming is their main source of income and most would probably support that policy. You can then go slightly further and say that if the children sell the farm in a certain period of time after death, say 10 years, then IHT is liable.

It is also not just land that is included in the value for IHT purposes, it is the crops in the field, the seeds/fertalisers purchased to run the farm for that year and even animals. One farmer on news yesterday said he has around 3 million in cattle before the land etc. he would be liable yet dairy farmers make fuck all, were do you think they will find tens of thousands for this tax? They wont, they’ll become even more unprofitable and we’ll lose valuable farms to big corporations or the wealthiest land owners.

Hey, Ollie's back! Yes, lying bastards. Of course their land is worth 3.5 mill if they sell it to property developers. Nowhere near worth that if you plant corn on it instead. But the cunt Reeves would never play it straight. And they lying media bastards want to fuck her in the arse one minute for not being an economist and then lick her flaps for coming up with such a cool "economist" punishment for the farmers. And it serves the anti-food movement too. What's all that about, I wonder. Don't tell me the corporations want to total control of the food supply, whatever that shit they call food happens to be. Strange how this shit is happening here, the US, Netherlands, all over Europe. What a fucking coincidence.

[Letters]

So you condone criminality? Another interesting Christian twist. If the state is allowed to rob them, why is it illegal for me to? Or you? If they own that land, if they bought it, worked it, as in actual work - not sitting in a fucking office, why is it reasonable for office dicks to steal the value of their investment and labour? Explain.

Mark 12:13-17.

[Letters]

The value of the land and income generated from it are two completely different things.

Fair point.

The amount of people saying “oh just sell some land then to pay for the tax” is maddening. Who would buy a small amount of land other than to build houses potentially meaning our farming land decreases and we become more reliant on food production overseas.

Selling part of the land is an option. Not an ideal one, I'd agree. Neither is selling up completely. I guess another option would be to take out a loan secured against the land - if you've inherited that much land then you're mortgage free. You've suggested an income of £50k a year, that would surely be able to service a reasonable size mortgage. The main point for me is how many caveats there are to this and so how few farms this actually applies to:

Estates will receive relief of £1m, with up to £500,000 of additional relief, as with non-farming estates. If a farm is jointly-owned by a couple in a marriage or civil partnership, the relief doubles from £1.5m to £3m. Any tax owed beyond the level of relief will be charged at 20%, half the standard 40%. If farms are gifted to family members at least seven years before death no IHT is payable.

There will of course be people who can't take advantage of some of the above - people who own a farm on their own can't take advantage of the marriage thing, people who are old enough that they're unlikely to live another 7 years. But that's a vanishingly small number of people. For the vast majority of people this will have very little or no effect. The people who it does affect are mostly pretty well off.
Any change in rules will seem unfair to some people. When I was a kid the retirement age was 65, now mine is 67 and could of course keep changing. My dad got a final salary pension at 60, mine doesn't pay out till I'm 65 - and that's the old one which is now closed, the new one pays out at "the retirement age". Is that fair? I dunno, it's just a reflection of an ageing population and a need to balance the books. The country is in a financial hole right now, some decisions have to be made about how to get us out of it and whatever decisions are made some people are going to regard them as unfair.

Be honest, Ollie, do you mostly care about this because it affects you or your family? I accused (if that's the right word) you of being loaded before, you muttered something about me making assumptions, I'm just basing that on the very expensive schools you apparently went to. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but people do mostly care about stuff which affects them. Which is maybe why I don't care about this - or at least have very little sympathy for what I perceive as a load of rich people whining about having to pay more tax.

If their policy was to tax those who bought farms to avoid IHT such as Clarkson (even though he has done a huge amount of good for farmers), they could have shaped a policy on that basis, probably along the lines of that if farming if your main source of income, it’s exempt from IHT. The likes of clarkson & Dyson wouldn’t be able to argue farming is their main source of income and most would probably support that policy. You can then go slightly further and say that if the children sell the farm in a certain period of time after death, say 10 years, then IHT is liable.

That doesn't sound unreasonable I guess.